On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 13:19 -0400, [email protected] wrote: > FWIIW, I thought the question was in regards to Cluster Suite (RHCS), not > Global File System (GFS)? In that regard, what does fencing have to do with > this?
Fencing is mandatory (otherwise not supported by RH) even if not using GFS. How do you deal with split brain if not fencing or suiciding ? > @Ana, are you concerned about pulse heartbeat? That should not be an issue, > but more so, there will (probably) be no kernel client-session tracking for > fail-over, because your remote datacenter is not on the same physical LAN. > That means if you did fail-over, the virtual IP will takeover, but all > current sessions would be dropped and need to re-connect. > > Also, from my understanding of Linux IPVS on which RHCS is based, is that it > can support a remote datacenter, without spanning tree, if you use the > tunneling option (not direct or nat)... although we have never tried it. > RHCS is NOT based on IPVS . > But your "support" question sounds like it is aimed squarely at Red Hat > should something break down, and not about Linux IPVS being capable of > working or not. If your implementation works solely with the tools Red Hat > supplies, then I see no reason why they would not support an issue should it > present itself during your QA. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of brem belguebli > Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 9:41 AM > To: linux clustering > Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster] RHCS separate datacenter > > Hi, > > Fencing is the blocking point, in case you want site disaster to be > automatically handled. > > Brem > > 2010/8/12 Laszlo Beres <[email protected]>: > > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Marchezetti Macedo, Ana Cristina > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> I have heard that RHCS has not been designed for use across separate > >> locations but I didn't find any red hat statment about it? Is it > >> supported by Red Hat? > > > > IMHO as long as you can ensure all RHCS requirements between different > > geographical locations, it should not be a problem. But that's true, > > there is no definitive support for SRDF or other storage replication, > > as it exists in Sun Cluster for instance. > > > > -- > > László Béres Unix system engineer > > http://www.google.com/profiles/beres.laszlo > > > > -- > > Linux-cluster mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster > > -- > Linux-cluster mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster > > -- > Linux-cluster mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster -- Linux-cluster mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
