Hi, On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 06:28:52PM +0200, Atanas Dyulgerov wrote: > Hi, > > I'm not going to compare both solutions. I'm creating a cluster > with 3 nodes - two active and a passive. Two special > applications are going to work on both active nodes. If either > of them fails it will be 'migrated' to the standby node. Those > applications use heavily the storage device. For that purpose > the storage device must be shared on all three machines. Each > application uses its own part of that device (different folder > or different partition). They does not access the same data.
> Due to performance issues using NFS is not an option for me. What I need is > exactly a way to export/import a block device over the network. There are the > following alternatives for network block device: > - NBD - legacy, does not handle with the network failure > - BNBD - read only > - ENBD - works, but there are performance issues and again network failures > are not handled properly. Works well with pure kernel, but not with RH or > SUSE kernels. Not documented. Seems legacy as well. DM-multipath does not > support ENBD devices. > - GNBD - This seems the best of the above. Supports fencing and multipath. > This works well for me ... > ... BUT GNBD requires rh cluster manager and works tightly with RH Cluster > Suite. Needs all RHCS packages installed. Does not work on most Linux > distributions. So, if I want to use GNBD (with whatever FS - ext3, gfs, ocfs2 > - it does not matter) I'm forced to use RHCS on every node. > > I really like Heartbeat and got used to it but it is stupid to use Heartbeat > on top of RHCS. Better use RHCS only. > > So my question is, is there an NBD solution (an GNBD alternative) which works > with Heartbeat? I couldn't find such. So no way for me to share a block > device over the network in my Heartbeat cluster. I have to switch to RHCS... If I understand your requirements correctly, you need shared storage, but not a cluster filesystem. You also want to go with a network based storage. In that case, you can try DRBD. Many people use that and it seems to have good performance. Alternatively, you can try iscsi, but in that case you may need an extra storage server. Or you may try to put that in the cluster itself: that should work, but it'd definitely make a somewhat awkward construction. Thanks, Dejan > Do you plan to implement/adopt such NBD and Global File System which will be > manageable in Heartbeat? > > Any other ideas which can help me using Heartbeat instead of RHCS? > > Very thanks in advance! > > Regards, > Atanas > _______________________________________________ > Linux-HA mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha > See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
