On 12/23/2010 09:51 PM, Bart Coninckx wrote:
I'd definitely go with 1, and it has nothing to do with performance. If
> > you put the whole VM on top of DRBD, and then make that a primary/primary
> > (aka active/active) DRBD then you can live-migrate the VM between host
> > and/or use Remus VM-mirroring for VM-HA. I don't see why anyone would
> > ever go with 2 as leaving the OS unreplicated on the small LV exposes
> > you to big potential downtime as you rebuild a new OS for the
> > replicated-data in the event of a failure. Am I misinterpreting what
> > you mean?
> >
> > -JR
>
> Thanks for your input.
> You´re right. It has nothing to do with performance, I meant efficiency:
>
> The idea of 2 is to prevent live-replication of not that important non-user
> data (os + tmp|log files) that could be replicated via rsync at midnight.
> Thus I could use my DRBD capacity more efficiently and only for important
> data, though at the expense of maintainability.
>
> Best Regards
> Tim
When you scale your hardware correctly, you can get awesome results with DRBD.
Unfortunately we can´t scale our hardware really well, cheaply rented
servers in foreign datacenters :-/ (no hardware raid controller + 7200er
disks)
I second JR's suggestions.
I tend to approach 1 as well. You and JR seem to prove that, I will skip
idea 2.
Just out of curiosity: what mailsystem, how many
mailboxes and what storage are we talking?
We are talking about a small mailsystem with ~200 users
(mariadb,postfix,dovcot,amavisd,clamav ...)
_______________________________________________
drbd-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linbit.com/mailman/listinfo/drbd-user
