On 10-03-23 02:50 PM, Florian Haas wrote:
On 03/23/2010 07:35 PM, Michael Schwartzkopff wrote:
Am Dienstag, 23. März 2010 17:08:56 schrieb Digimer:
On 10-03-23 10:02 AM, Florian Haas wrote:
On 2010-03-23 14:52, Michael Schwartzkopff wrote:
Am Freitag, 19. März 2010 14:12:30 schrieb [email protected]:
Hi list,
first of all please answer also to my email-address because I'm not
subscribed to the ML.
Here are my questions:
I have to set up drbd 8.0.14 (Debian stable) in dual-primary mode.
One node has to read and write while the other node only need read
access.
Do I need GFS or OCFS?
Not really if you can be sure that the second node ONLY reads.
Are you nuts? I thought you wrote books about this!
Or would a simple etx3 sufficient enough?
Yes. Mount option "read-only" in the second node.
I repeat my above statement.
I'm totally baffled right now.
Andreas: you want to put a filesystem on dual-Primary DRBD, it has to be
a cluster filesystem. No ifs, buts, or maybes.
Question is, do you really need dual-Primary DRBD? You most probably
don't.
Florian
From a purely technical view point, Michael isn't wrong. If the second
node never changes a single block on the DRBD partition, it can't
technically hurt it. Of course, you'd need to make sure that the node's
DRBD doesn't try to recover from failures without first fencing the
other node.
It's not wise, but it's not impossible, either.
didn't have my best day today. Although it should be possbile I did not say it
is wise to do.
To wrap this up: don't do this. Ever. The reasons have been mentioned in
this thread. Data divergence, and violation of cache coherency.
Florian
Agreed, bad idea.
--
Digimer
E-Mail: [email protected]
AN!Whitepapers: http://alteeve.com
Node Assassin: http://nodeassassin.org
_______________________________________________
drbd-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linbit.com/mailman/listinfo/drbd-user
