On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 10:19 -0700, John White wrote: > Good Morning Folks, > A quick question on lustre failover as far as OSSs are concerned. > Can failover pairs be in an (for lack of a better phrase) active- > active setup?
You are not lacking a better phrase. That's exactly the nomenclature we use to describe what you are looking for and yes, you most definitely can do active-active OSSes. I'd guest that a great portion of our failover-using customers are doing this. > Looking at the lustre docs, it looks like this is not the standard > operating procedure. Hrm. Can you point out where you are getting this impression from? Are you sure you are not just reading one of several scenarios? > Rather, it looks like a "active-passive" setup > where one OSS owns all the OSTs and the failover is more a warm spare > ready to kick into action when a failure occurs but not serving any > data requests while in full production. That's certainly a valid operating mode for OSSes, and the only failover mode supported for MDSes, but active-active OSSes is most certainly supported, and documented I thought. b.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
