Wasn't NFSv4 supposed to make some movement on making failover easier? I think? I don't remember the details, and the last I heard was at a USENIX conference report sometime or another.
--- Puryear Information Technology, LLC Baton Rouge, LA * 225-706-8414 http://www.puryear-it.com Author: "Best Practices for Managing Linux and UNIX Servers" "Spam Fighting and Email Security in the 21st Century" Download your free copies: http://www.puryear-it.com/publications.htm Wednesday, January 24, 2007, 4:24:13 PM, you wrote: > Dustin Puryear wrote: > Did they mention anything about fail-over for NFS? :-) > > I know NetApp claims they can do it. We do it at $work with Solaris and > Veritas Cluster on "traditional" nfs servers. Data is replicated to a > remote data center with Veritas Volume Replicator and the NFS location can > be switched from one location to the other fairly easily and > transparently. Such a solution is not cheap, but then, neither is the > data that sits on nfs around here so there ya go. > If you were going to try and accomplish NFS failover with a homegrown > tool, in addition to moving the IP address, you need to make sure the > underlying devices on both the primary and the failover have the same > major and minor numbers for the failover to work transparently. > --- > Puryear Information Technology, LLC > Baton Rouge, LA * 225-706-8414 > [1]http://www.puryear-it.com > Author: > "Best Practices for Managing Linux and UNIX Servers" > "Spam Fighting and Email Security in the 21st Century" > Download your free copies: > [2]http://www.puryear-it.com/publications.htm > Wednesday, January 24, 2007, 2:08:50 PM, you wrote: > > willhill wrote: > > I imagine they are making a framework rather than re-inventing all of those > tools. Why fork or remake iSCSI, samba, etc? The nice thing about having > lots of good little tools is that you can chain them together in new and > unexpected ways. Security is easier that way too. The only thing you have > to worry about is the framework doing something silly that thwarts the > policy of the components. > > > What they are doing is offering a software packaging of everything that > is NetApp's OnTap OS that they use on their NetApp filer boxes -- hence > the name. You still need a piece of hardware with the disks and > controllers, but this is essentially an open source competitor for the > software inside NetApp's offering and those of similar vendors for their > mid-tier storage boxes, > > Nice tool, Dustin. > On Wednesday 24 January 2007 07:57, michael dolan wrote: > > > ... I'd be worried about security... Also, so much for doing one thing and > doing it well. > > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [3]General at brlug.net > [4]http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net > > > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [5]General at brlug.net > [6]http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [7]General at brlug.net > [8]http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net > > References > Visible links > 1. http://www.puryear-it.com/ > 2. http://www.puryear-it.com/publications.htm > 3. mailto:General at brlug.net > 4. http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net > 5. mailto:General at brlug.net > 6. http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net > 7. mailto:General at brlug.net > 8. http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
