On 2015-07-07T12:23:44, Ulrich Windl <ulrich.wi...@rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote:
> The advantage depends on the alternatives: If two nodes both want to access
> the same filesystem, you can use OCFS2, NFS, or CIFS (list not complete). If
> only one node can access a filesystem, you could try any journaled filesystem
> (a fsck is needed after a node crash).
A journaled file system does not require a fsck after a crash.
> If you use NFS or CIFS, you shift the problem to another machine.
>
> If you use a local filesystem, you need recovery, mount, and start of your
> application on a standby node.
>
> With OCFS2 you'll have to wait for a few seconds before your application can
> continue.
The recovery happens in the background with OCFS2 as well; the fs
replays the failed node's journal in the background. The actual time
saved by avoiding the "mount" is negligible.
Regards,
Lars
--
Architect Storage/HA
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham
Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list is closing down.
Please subscribe to us...@clusterlabs.org instead.
http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
