I alway used the second option and i never found any problem 2012/1/25 Jan Huijsmans <jan.huijsm...@interaccess.nl>
> Hello, > > When checking the RedHat cluster set-up I was surprised to find the quorum > disk located > on the same LUN as the database. This location was chosen because the > database LUN > needs to be accessable for the node to be able to service the environment. > It's a logical choice. > > However, at this moment we're experiencing latency on the storage, which > also hinders > the usage of the qdisk. There are lots of time-outs on disk activity which > won't hinder the > application much, at least when the cluster won't reboot due to time-outs > on the qdisk. > > For me the logical choice for the qdisk would be a seperate LUN on a fast > disk, we have > a quorum disk library for the SAN with unused disks, instead on the same > LUN that's > being used by the application. (in a cabinet that's used by the complete > environment. > > This way the qdisk can be fast and it's a real quorum LUN, as it's located > on the quorum > location of the SAN controllers. > > My main question is which method would give the most stable environment > for the cluster. > > 1. qdisk on same LUN as application > 2. qdisk on seperate, isolated, LUN > > I would choose the second option, but I'm not sure which would give the > stability I'm seeking. > > Greetings, > > Jan Huijsmans > > -- > Linux-cluster mailing list > Linux-cluster@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster > -- esta es mi vida e me la vivo hasta que dios quiera
-- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
