On 2012-07-02T12:37:52, Ulrich Windl <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I've seen very few scenarios where OCFS2 was worth it over just using a
> > "regular" file system like XFS in a fail-over configuration in this kind
> > of environment.
> How would you fail over if your shared storage went toast? Or did you mean
> "storage failover" instead of "node failover".
I meant using a regular file system like XFS on top of DRBD. The cases
where active/active replication provides a real benefit are, well,
limited.
> Currently cLVM in SLES lacks the "internal bitmap" for reasonable
> re-sync. Having a "third device" for the bitmap does not make sense in
> this scenario.
Even here, many scenarios could do better if they just mirrored using md
raid1 in an active/passive setup.
(Going forward, solutions like RADOS are more interesting, I think.)
> The only real alternative to OCFS is NFS, but I'd suspect the
> performance will be worse in NFS for cluster applications (like
> hosting VM images for live migrations).
I actually doubt that, at least if you're comparing it to DRBD
replication - in both cases, the network is likely your bottleneck.
Regards,
Lars
--
Architect Storage/HA
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB
21284 (AG Nürnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
