I tried this configuration. I found that the active/active configuration worked but had strange issues. These may have been related to the stability of OCFS2 itself or it might have had to do with running on a non supported OS (Fedora Core 5). I had strange issues. Folders that would not delete, system would not reboot after OCFS2 hang. I spoke with someone else who had similar issues getting this type of system into production.
I would suggest having with the active/passive replicated disk formatted with ext3 as a backup plan. On Feb 17, 2008 2:23 PM, Michael Brennen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Can someone give pointers to integrating ocfs2 with heartbeat? The > idea is to run ocfs2 as the cluster file system on the real servers > running on an iscsi failover backend cluster. Apparently some > userspace patches are required to ocfs2 to let hb manage it, but I > think things have changed much since most of the information I've > found with google was published. > > ocfs2 seems to be the best available cluster file system to run with > hb. The gfs file system is perhaps the most complete, but it is all > entangled with the redhat clvm and cluster management, and I do not > want to manage that. Does anyone have a better suggestion than > ocfs2? > > -- Michael > _______________________________________________ > 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
