From: Jody McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 09:40:41 -0500
Hi John,
On Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 09:04:00AM -0500, John R. Dunning wrote:
> Well, ok, so is it a fair statement to say that the recommended
configuration
> is to use point-to-point, but if a customer, for whatever reason, wants
to use
> a SAN-like topology, there's no real downside to that as long as the
host-side
> software is allowed to treat it as if it was point-to-point? What I'm
really
> after here is what we should put in our documentation, and what to point
users
> to when they're trying to work out how to set up their systems.
Yes, that's fair.
The actual requirement is that it needs to show up as a block device on
the host (OSS.) Beyond that, we don't care how it got there as long as
only one OSS is serving it at any given time. This is usually
controlled by your failover software (heartbeat/etc.)
Yup, got it. I've been testing the failover software as we speak, and
scribbling down notes that will turn into the doc. I suspect that most of the
time the only interesting difference between the san and non-san cases is
which luns are visible where. As long as the overall system configuration
(including the failover stuff) has a clear idea in its head of which luns get
remounted where in the case of a failure, the rest can safely be left up to
the sysadmin to do however he feels comfortable.
_______________________________________________
Lustre-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
