On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Johann Lombardi <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 02:01:06PM +0100, Andrew Godziuk wrote: >> Then I guess this part of manual should be changed: ... >> to state explicitly that active/active scenario is only possible when >> OSS is active for some OSTs and passive for some others. > > Yes, i think this is explained in the next section: > "For OST failover, multiple OSS nodes are configured to be able to serve the > same OST. However, only one OSS node can serve the OST at a time. An OST can > be > moved between OSS nodes that have access to the same storage device using > umount/mount commands. "
It sounded to me like contradiction and made me ask the question here. Now that I know, it sounds logical. > BTW, in your case, since you did not specify a failover node for the OST at > mkfs time, the lustre clients are not aware of the alternative path and thus > won't try to reach the OST through the 2nd OSS. So your filesystem should > still be safe since the 2nd mount instance should never receive any client > connection. However, I would still recommend to umount the OST on the 2nd > OSS asap. This was just a test setup, I'll be specifying --failover in the live setup for sure. Again, thank you very much for your help. -- Andrzej Godziuk http://CloudAccess.net/ _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
