>>> Lars Marowsky-Bree <l...@suse.com> schrieb am 02.07.2012 um 12:28 in >>> Nachricht <20120702102856.gm4...@suse.de>: > On 2012-07-02T12:05:33, Ulrich Windl <ulrich.wi...@rz.uni-regensburg.de> > wrote: > > > Unfortunately unless there's a real cluster filesystem that supports > mirroring with shared devices also, DRBD on some locally mirrored device on > each node seems to be the only alternative. (Talking about desasters) > > I've seen very few scenarios where OCFS2 was worth it over just using a > "regular" file system like XFS in a fail-over configuration in this kind > of environment.
Hi! How would you fail over if your shared storage went toast? Or did you mean "storage failover" instead of "node failover". > > (If you need mirroring on top of shared devices / SAN, the way to go is > OCFS2 over cLVM2 mirroring, by the way.) Currently cLVM in SLES lacks the "internal bitmap" for reasonable re-sync. Having a "third device" for the bitmap does not make sense in this scenario. > > There *are* good use cases for OCFS2. In my experience, 80% of the > scenarios out there ain't one of those ;-) The only real alternative to OCFS is NFS, but I'd suspect the performance will be worse in NFS for cluster applications (like hosting VM images for live migrations). Regards, Ulrich _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
