I think Linux HA or something equivalent is mandatory. The manual of 1.6 says so. And as 1.4.5.1 being old, its manual is not available.
Klaus Steden wrote: > On 6/26/08 9:16 PM, "Dhruv" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>did etch on stone > tablets: > > > Actually with my kernel of 2.6.9-22, lustre 1.4.5.1 fits. And i am > > not in position to change the OS itself. > > > > I tried with the failover of OSTs without Linux HA. It worked fairly. > > I am now testing the same rigoursly to see whether i am correct. But > > the failover of MDS without HA didnt worked atall. > > > > Can it without HA? > > > No. As Brian pointed out, Lustre supports failover at the server level, but > detection, fencing, etc. has to be handled by another process external to > Lustre. Most people use Linux-HA, including myself, and I find it to be > robust and fairly straightforward to implement. However, because you're > using 1.4, you might have to resort to some "script-fu" to get the > remounting operation to work properly. > > Here is a paste of my /etc/ha.d/haresources file, which for Lustre 1.6 can > be used with the Linux 'mount' command, meaning I can treat my Lustre MDT as > a regular disk, which HA supports very well. If you use lconf, you'll have > to make some sort of script-based call-out to have the secondary MDS start > when it detects failure on the primary. > > -- cut -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# cat /etc/ha.d/haresources > mds-0-0.local 172.16.2.252 > Filesystem::-Llustre-MDT0000::/mnt/lustremdt::lustre > -- cut -- > > (that's supposed to be all one line ... stupid mail client) > > cheers, > Klaus > > _______________________________________________ > Lustre-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
