Hello, what do you mean by "true" clustering ? We can do a Windows Failover cluster (1 virtual ip, 1 virtual name), but this mean using a shared storage like SAN.
Then it depends on your network topology. If you have multiple geographical sites / datacenter, then DFS-R behave a lot better than Gluster in replicated mode. Users won't notice any latency, At the price that replication is async. Cordialement, Mathieu CHATEAU http://www.lotp.fr 2015-08-10 7:26 GMT+02:00 Ira Cooper <[email protected]>: > Mathieu Chateau <[email protected]> writes: > > > I do have DFS-R in production, that replaced sometimes netapp ones. > > But no similar workload as my current GFS. > > > > In active/active, the most common issue is file changed on both side (no > > global lock) > > Will users access same content from linux & windows ? > > If you want to go active/active. I'd recommend Samba + CTDB + Gluster. > > You want true clustering, and a system that can handle the locking etc. > > I'd layer normal DFS to do "namespace" control, and to help with > handling failover, or just use round robin DNS. > > Thanks, > > -Ira >
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
