On Monday 21 May 2012 14:06:22 Florian Haas wrote: > You've already stated that you're able to separate file access per > node. And you only want access from two nodes, otherwise you wouldn't > be considering DRBD. So, that makes your system a textbook use case > for two separate single-Primary DRBD resources. This type of setup is > orders of magnitude simpler to get right than a dual-Primary > configuration, as both Arnold and Madison (digimer) have pointed out > earlier. It completely sidesteps the issue of managing a cluster > filesystem, and if you're concerned about being able to grow your > filesystem later, just slap your DRBD resources onto LVM logical > volumes, and you can resize at will (to the extent that your > filesystem supports it).
The only down-side of "one single-primary-drbd per vm" is that you 'loose' live-migration compared to dual-primary or a cluster fs like gluster, moosefs, ceph or sheepdog. Maybe one could try dual-primary-drbd as a direct image for a vm? But then dealing with split-brains (and their automatic resolve) and cluster-management is more complicated then just setting up one of the aforementioned distributed storage systems. Have fun, Arnold
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ drbd-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linbit.com/mailman/listinfo/drbd-user
