On 4/23/11 9:59 PM, Patrick Egloff wrote:
I got several pm urging me NOT to use active/active and OCFS2.
Hi, what were the stated reasons to avoid active/active OCFS2?
Did they prefer GFS2 or just not like active/active?
We have a few active/active clusters running OCFS2 and have not
encountered many problems outside issues with folders with tens of
thousands of small files.
For larger files such as VMs, we see few issues. Please note that the
active/active clusers in question tend to have most of the writes
occuring on the A side and we do reads and maintenance on the B side, so
perhaps our setup is more of an Active/Passsive (R/W mode).
That being said. Active/Active with OCFS2 works very well and we are
quite comfortable with it.
It should also be said that Active/Passsive (not mounted) has much
better performance, irregardless of the file system used.
One more question. I have 2 ethernet ports. eth1 is used to link both
boxes together.
Should i use for DRBD + Heartbeat a different IP address and class
than on eth0 which is on the LAN ?
We do that so that its easier to know what network you are looking at
when ssh'ed on the box.
-bill
_______________________________________________
drbd-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linbit.com/mailman/listinfo/drbd-user
