On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 20:17 -0600, Eric Schoeller wrote: > I think there are plenty of uses for gfs2 ontop of drbd... but I > could > be wrong. For example, if you're looking for an active/active > configuration but don't have access to a SAN for shared storage (say, > perhaps due to cost). Using DRBD allows you to simply use the > internal > disks on both nodes for your shared storage. Then you obviously need > a > clustered file system to ride on top of that, and gfs2 fits the bill.
Never in an active/active configuration. drbd makes a lot of sense if
you have a single active host but with an active/active solution you
have no way of dealing with distributed conflicts? drbd starts by
keeping two copies of everything on separate nodes and asyncronly
exchange the data between the nodes to keep the logical device
consistent. For an application that runs on two separate nodes
independently this just makes no sense. Not only are we tripling the
writes needed but you have no way to dealing with two master copies in
conflict.
My main concern is the huge overhead with the solution. drbd looks like
the way to go in passive/active solutions though.
--
Best Regards
Peter Larsen
Wise words of the day:
Linux: because a PC is a terrible thing to waste
-- [email protected] put this on Tshirts in '93
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
