-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Le 24/01/2014 09:00, Eneko Lacunza a écrit : > Hi Philippe, > > Maybe you have thought about this, but does it make sense for your > use case to have a PVE-HA cluster, that is dependent on a third > storage non-HA server? > > Do you REALLY need the HA capacity? > > I think that the 10 Gbit network connection will help most > connecting PVE servers with storage backend, be it another PVE > server or a storage one. > > Cheers Eneko >
Hi, thanks for your (clever) answer. I thought i could use the (one of the amazing) features of ZFS (like zfs send zfs receive) to avoid buying a costly second storage server. Costly because of the amount of disks. So having a 2nodes cluster with a master/slave storage SAN, was my idea. But, you're right: A HA cluster for pve, with a non-HA storage is a non-sense. But, i'm not confident with the idea of virtualizing the ZFS storage, loosing by the way the rock-solid, direct access to hardware features and self-healing capabilities of ZFS. Another question:In case of blade system; is the fencing devicing still useful ? Ok, let's assume i don't need the HA and will migrate manually a VM. I'm in a secondary school and can afford a few minutes (maybe hours if it occurs once a year maximum ..) downtime. What does it change to my infrastructure questions ? Thanks. Cheers. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlLiMR8ACgkQlhqCFkbqHRbIEwCeN3KICFHtsxmAIfYY8HXpn+5F 2zIAn1aditQvkG3If+FiHjstTl2ZkVsj =mW4Y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ pve-user mailing list [email protected] http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user
