On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 08:15:31PM +0200, Christoph Lechner wrote: > >> 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.
If you do not need concurrent access, yes, I'd strongly recommend to get rid of the cluster file system. As long as you don't export via NFS or similar, I think the downtime can be reduced to about a minute. Don't think that is "long" for such a task. -- : Lars Ellenberg : LINBIT | Your Way to High Availability : DRBD/HA support and consulting http://www.linbit.com DRBD® and LINBIT® are registered trademarks of LINBIT, Austria. _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
