Lars Ellenberg wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 12:19:58PM +0200, Christoph Lechner wrote: >> Andrew Beekhof wrote: >>> The pre-reqs for a functional OCFS2 cluster (using the userspace stack) are: >>> * pacemaker 1.0 >>> * kernel >=2.6.26 >>> * ocfs2-tools >= 1.4.1 >>> * openais >>> >>> Heartbeat was only a possibility for SLES10 kernels which had this >>> capability patched in. >>> The patches were not accepted upstream and have since been deprecated. >>> The chances of getting them to apply on a recent kernel are minimal. >> So, bad news... >> >> Another question. Is there a risk of data loss/corruption in my case if >> I use the (broken) Filesystem OCF script from 2.1.3? >> I'd say no, given the fact that the servers don't have shared storage, >> because it's a Primary/Slave DRBD configuration. DRBD makes sure that >> only one host can write at the same time. > > If you lose the replication connection, that is not exactly true. > Ok, it still does not corrupt data. > But data sets can diverge, which may do even more harm. For the production setup I planned the Ethernet replication link and a serial null modem cable. I know the serial cable can really slow down a CRM based setup. But I'm going to pay the price because if I mess the firewall two independent Ethernet links still don't prevent a split-brain.
> >> Actually it seems to me that we don't need OCFS because the idea is that >> all hosts have simultaneous write access to the shared medium -- like >> iSCSI or Fibre Channel. In our case only one host has write access at >> the same time to a non-shared medium. >> >> OCFS2 on the disk is the legacy of the previous DRBD setup with two >> primaries. So should we migrate to ext3? We postponed it as it would >> induce quite a long downtime. > > What exactly is it that you are trying to achieve? The filesystem that is mirrored via DRBD is still formatted with an OCFS2 fs. That's some legacy of a former setup. Now we have a working Heartbeat setup and only on one of the two machines DRBD is primary, the other one is secondary. So only one host has the file system mounted. The question was if you would recommend a change to ext3. - cl _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
