On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, Eddie C wrote:
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.
Thanks for your followup. I am setting one node only as active with
a floating ip and iscsi connection. The secondary is archived by
drbd. From my reading this is the safest way to manage it.
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
