Hi, read your instructions - that's pretty much the setup we are using, too. And it works very well, drbd 0.8 non-withstanding, but on a hardware raid. I do not quite understand your remark about not using an extra net for drbd - have you tried putting the name that's in your drbd.conf together with the other IP into /etc/hosts ? My guess is that the performance of your MDS-pair is influenced by drbd doing its job - I would keep that separate from the Lustre data stream. The machines we are planning to use in our next cluster are actually equipped with four network interfaces - two (bonded) for Lustre, one for drbd and one for heartbeat - those serial cables only give me error messages and headaches.
We have separate partitions for MGS and MDT - on one machine. Didn't understand that this would not be the Lustre way? This way at least one doesn't have to worry about a super fast connection between MGS and MDT. Is there a particular reason for not managing the IP via heartbeat? At least it's easier to setup than the drbddisk and Filesystem resources. Regards, Thomas Heiko Schroeter wrote: > Hello, > > at last a first version of our setup scenario is ready. > > Please consider this as a general guideline. It may contain errors. > We know that some things are done differently in the lustre community i.e. > placing MDS and MDT on seperate machines. > > Please let me know if you find bugs or if things can be improved. > > "There is more than one way." > > Regards > Heiko > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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
