On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 02:17:09AM -0400, Peter Larsen wrote: > 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
Nope. For obvious reasons, we allow dual-primary mode only in _synchronous_ replication mode. > 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. But yes, dual-primary is more complex to handle, as most replication link breakage currently necessitates an immediate reboot of one of the servers. So you better make sure your replication link is redundant and stable in itself. We try to improve the handling. > My main concern is the huge overhead with the solution. drbd looks like > the way to go in passive/active solutions though. -- : 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
