Re: [Linux-cluster] About GFS1 and I/O barriers.
Hi, Both GFS1 and GFS2 are safe from this problem since neither of them use barriers. Instead we do a flush at the critical points to ensure that all data is on disk before proceeding with the next stage. Using barriers can improve performance in certain cases, but we've not yet implemented them in GFS2, Steve. On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 12:46 +0200, Mathieu Avila wrote: Hello all again, More information on this topic: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/25/71 I guess the problem also applies to GFSS2. -- Mathieu Le Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:34:58 +0100, Mathieu Avila [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : Hello GFS team, Some recent kernel developements have brought IO barriers into the kernel to prevent corruptions that could happen when blocks are being reordered before write, by the kernel or the block device itself, just before an electrical power failure. (on high-end block devices with UPS or NVRAM, those problems cannot happen) Some file systems implement them, notably ext3 and XFS. It seems to me that GFS1 has no such thing. Do you plan to implement it ? If so, could the attached patch do the work ? It's incomplete : it would need a global tuning like fast_stafs, and a mount option like it's done for ext3. The code is mainly a copy-paste from JBD, and does a barrier only for journal meta-data. (should i do it for other meta-data ?) Thanks, -- Mathieu -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
Re: [Linux-cluster] SCSI Reservations Red Hat Cluster Suite
Tomasz Sucharzewski napisał(a): Hello, Ryan O'Hara wrote: 4 - Limitations ... - Multipath devices are not currently supported. What is the reason - it is strongly required to use at least two HBA in a SAN network, which is useless when using scsi reservation. Hello, There is need to use multipath in production environments, and it is the main drawback of SCSI Reservations for Red Hat Cluster Suite. Here [1] You can read more about the problems with SCSI Reservations http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-cluster@redhat.com/msg00524.html Best Regards Maciej Bogucki -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
Re: [Linux-cluster] SCSI Reservations Red Hat Cluster Suite
I believe that this is only a limitation for RHEL4. RHEL5 should have a fix that allows dm-multipath to properly pass ioctls to all devices. Hello, One problem is registration, but another problem is un-registration fe. when there is failover from one HBA to another and failback. Third problem is active-standby LB for two or more HBA, and how to handle this. Best Regards Maciej Bogucki -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
Re: [Linux-cluster] SCSI reservation conflicts after update
From my understanding persistent SCSI reservations are only needed if I am using the fence_scsi module. Yes. Best Regards Maciej Bogucki -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
[Linux-cluster] (newbie) mirrored data / cluster ?
Hello all, I have spent the day reading through the mailing list archives, Redhat documentation, and CentOS forums, and - to be frank - my head is now swimming with information. My scenario seems reasonably straightforward : I would like to have two file servers which mirror each others' data, then i'd like those two servers to act as a cluster, whereby they serve said data as if they were one machine. If one of the servers suffers a critical failure, the other will stay up, and the data will continue to be accessible to the rest of the network. I note with some trepidation that this might not be possible, as per this document : http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-5-manual/en-US/RHEL510/Cluster_Logical_Volume_Manager/mirrored_volumes.html However, i don't know if that document relates to the same scenario i've described above. I would very much appreciate any and all feedback, links to further documentation, and any other information that you might like to share. Thank you ! -- Daniel Maher dma AT witbe.net signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
Re: [Linux-cluster] Unformatting a GFS cluster disk
Hi, We're making some progress on recovering our GFS disk.. We've created a small c app, which marked all bytes as 0xff on: grp hdr: with offset 80 grp blk: with offset 120 But fsck takes ages to run (looks like weeks on our full disk). If we run on a smaller disk the process completes faster but after that, device is non mountable. So, we're thinking about an alternate strategy. What if we try and reconstruct the GFS headers to tell it where old file group structures are located. ie. I can identity all (old and new) filegroups on the disk. I then change the header structures so they point to the old file groups (at least the ones that were not overwritten by the previous mkfs) rather than the new file groups. Does this approach make sense? Where do I update the GFS headers to tell the system where the old file group headers are located? Damon. Working to protect human rights worldwide DISCLAIMER Internet communications are not secure and therefore Amnesty International Ltd does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose or rely on the information in this e-mail. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Amnesty International Ltd unless specifically stated. Electronic communications including email might be monitored by Amnesty International Ltd. for operational or business reasons. This message has been scanned for viruses by Postini. www.postini.com -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
RE: [Linux-cluster] (newbie) mirrored data / cluster ?
You don't have to have a mirrored LVM to do what youre trying to do. You just need a common mountable share - typically a SAN or NAS. It shouldn't be too hard to configure (and I've already done it). You don't even *have* to have cluster suite - if you have a load balancer. My brain isn't fast enough today to figure out how to share a load without a load balanced VIP or a DNS round robin (which should be easy to do as well). Rob Marti Systems Analyst II Sam Houston State University -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Daniel Maher Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 12:40 PM To: linux-cluster@redhat.com Subject: [Linux-cluster] (newbie) mirrored data / cluster ? Hello all, I have spent the day reading through the mailing list archives, Redhat documentation, and CentOS forums, and - to be frank - my head is now swimming with information. My scenario seems reasonably straightforward : I would like to have two file servers which mirror each others' data, then i'd like those two servers to act as a cluster, whereby they serve said data as if they were one machine. If one of the servers suffers a critical failure, the other will stay up, and the data will continue to be accessible to the rest of the network. I note with some trepidation that this might not be possible, as per this document : http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-5-manual/en-US/RHEL51 0/Cluster_Logical_Volume_Manager/mirrored_volumes.html However, i don't know if that document relates to the same scenario i've described above. I would very much appreciate any and all feedback, links to further documentation, and any other information that you might like to share. Thank you ! -- Daniel Maher dma AT witbe.net -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
Re: [Linux-cluster] (newbie) mirrored data / cluster ?
The non-SAN option would be to use DRBD (http://www.drbd.org) and put NFS, Samba, etc on top of the DRBD partition. Chris MARTI, ROBERT JESSE wrote: You don't have to have a mirrored LVM to do what youre trying to do. You just need a common mountable share - typically a SAN or NAS. It shouldn't be too hard to configure (and I've already done it). You don't even *have* to have cluster suite - if you have a load balancer. My brain isn't fast enough today to figure out how to share a load without a load balanced VIP or a DNS round robin (which should be easy to do as well). Rob Marti Systems Analyst II Sam Houston State University -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Daniel Maher Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 12:40 PM To: linux-cluster@redhat.com Subject: [Linux-cluster] (newbie) mirrored data / cluster ? Hello all, I have spent the day reading through the mailing list archives, Redhat documentation, and CentOS forums, and - to be frank - my head is now swimming with information. My scenario seems reasonably straightforward : I would like to have two file servers which mirror each others' data, then i'd like those two servers to act as a cluster, whereby they serve said data as if they were one machine. If one of the servers suffers a critical failure, the other will stay up, and the data will continue to be accessible to the rest of the network. I note with some trepidation that this might not be possible, as per this document : http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-5-manual/en-US/RHEL51 0/Cluster_Logical_Volume_Manager/mirrored_volumes.html However, i don't know if that document relates to the same scenario i've described above. I would very much appreciate any and all feedback, links to further documentation, and any other information that you might like to share. Thank you ! -- Daniel Maher dma AT witbe.net -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
[Linux-cluster] drbd and gfs
Hi, I'm trying to do the follow setup: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2723/1994/1600/plan.jpg Extracted from this link: http://linuxsutra.blogspot.com/2006/11/howto-gfs-gnbd.html But, my GNBD Server has one dom0 and my nodes has two domU's, all running RHEL 5.1 x86_84. 10.25.2.1 gnbdserv.mycluster.com gnbdserv 10.25.0.251 node1.mycluster.com 10.25.0.252 node2.mycluster.com My server.conf is this: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2723/1994/1600/clusterconf.jpg But I'm getting a lot of logs like this: Mar 31 15:37:24 teste-spo-la-v1 fenced[1530]: fencing node gnbdserv.mycluster.com Mar 31 15:37:24 teste-spo-la-v1 fenced[1530]: agent fence_gnbd reports: warning: 'ipaddr' key is depricated, please see man page failed: missing server list Mar 31 15:37:24 teste-spo-la-v1 fenced[1530]: fence gnbdserv.mycluster.com failed Ask 1-): I'm already seeing the device exported from the server on my nodes, but I still needing that the dom0 as part of cluster? [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# gnbd_import -n -l Device name : cluster -- Minor # : 0 sysfs name : /block/gnbd0 Server : gnbdserv Port : 14567 State : Close Connected Clear Readonly : No Sectors : 20971520 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# cman_tool nodes Node Sts Inc Joined Name 1 X 0gnbdserv.mycluster.com 2 M 24 2008-03-31 12:20:27 node1.mycluster.com 3 M 16 2008-03-31 12:20:27 node2.mycluster.com Ask 2-) I've formated on this way: # mkfs.gfs2 -t mycluster:root -p lock_dlm -j 2 /dev/Vol_LVM/mycluster But I still can't mount the device: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# mount -v /dev/gnbd/cluster /mnt/ mount: you didn't specify a filesystem type for /dev/gnbd/cluster I will try type gfs2 /sbin/mount.gfs2: mount /dev/gnbd/cluster /mnt /sbin/mount.gfs2: parse_opts: opts = rw /sbin/mount.gfs2: clear flag 1 for rw, flags = 0 /sbin/mount.gfs2: parse_opts: flags = 0 /sbin/mount.gfs2: parse_opts: extra = /sbin/mount.gfs2: parse_opts: hostdata = /sbin/mount.gfs2: parse_opts: lockproto = /sbin/mount.gfs2: parse_opts: locktable = /sbin/mount.gfs2: message to gfs_controld: asking to join mountgroup: /sbin/mount.gfs2: write join /mnt gfs2 lock_dlm mycluster:root rw /dev/gnbd/cluster /sbin/mount.gfs2: node not a member of the default fence domain /sbin/mount.gfs2: error mounting lockproto lock_dlm What can I do to fix this? Thanks!! -- Tiago Cruz http://everlinux.com Linux User #282636 -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
[Linux-cluster] GNBD and GFS (was: drbd and gfs)
Hello all, Sorry... wrong subject! I was with drbd on my head, but I don't like him because I just can use 2 (two) nodes. The correct subject it's gnbd and GFS! I hope that someone can help me! Regards On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 15:52 -0300, Tiago Cruz wrote: Hi, I'm trying to do the follow setup: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2723/1994/1600/plan.jpg Extracted from this link: http://linuxsutra.blogspot.com/2006/11/howto-gfs-gnbd.html But, my GNBD Server has one dom0 and my nodes has two domU's, all running RHEL 5.1 x86_84. 10.25.2.1 gnbdserv.mycluster.com gnbdserv 10.25.0.251 node1.mycluster.com 10.25.0.252 node2.mycluster.com My server.conf is this: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2723/1994/1600/clusterconf.jpg But I'm getting a lot of logs like this: Mar 31 15:37:24 teste-spo-la-v1 fenced[1530]: fencing node gnbdserv.mycluster.com Mar 31 15:37:24 teste-spo-la-v1 fenced[1530]: agent fence_gnbd reports: warning: 'ipaddr' key is depricated, please see man page failed: missing server list Mar 31 15:37:24 teste-spo-la-v1 fenced[1530]: fence gnbdserv.mycluster.com failed Ask 1-): I'm already seeing the device exported from the server on my nodes, but I still needing that the dom0 as part of cluster? [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# gnbd_import -n -l Device name : cluster -- Minor # : 0 sysfs name : /block/gnbd0 Server : gnbdserv Port : 14567 State : Close Connected Clear Readonly : No Sectors : 20971520 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# cman_tool nodes Node Sts Inc Joined Name 1 X 0gnbdserv.mycluster.com 2 M 24 2008-03-31 12:20:27 node1.mycluster.com 3 M 16 2008-03-31 12:20:27 node2.mycluster.com Ask 2-) I've formated on this way: # mkfs.gfs2 -t mycluster:root -p lock_dlm -j 2 /dev/Vol_LVM/mycluster But I still can't mount the device: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# mount -v /dev/gnbd/cluster /mnt/ mount: you didn't specify a filesystem type for /dev/gnbd/cluster I will try type gfs2 /sbin/mount.gfs2: mount /dev/gnbd/cluster /mnt /sbin/mount.gfs2: parse_opts: opts = rw /sbin/mount.gfs2: clear flag 1 for rw, flags = 0 /sbin/mount.gfs2: parse_opts: flags = 0 /sbin/mount.gfs2: parse_opts: extra = /sbin/mount.gfs2: parse_opts: hostdata = /sbin/mount.gfs2: parse_opts: lockproto = /sbin/mount.gfs2: parse_opts: locktable = /sbin/mount.gfs2: message to gfs_controld: asking to join mountgroup: /sbin/mount.gfs2: write join /mnt gfs2 lock_dlm mycluster:root rw /dev/gnbd/cluster /sbin/mount.gfs2: node not a member of the default fence domain /sbin/mount.gfs2: error mounting lockproto lock_dlm What can I do to fix this? Thanks!! -- Tiago Cruz http://everlinux.com Linux User #282636 -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
[Linux-cluster] Using GFS and DLM without RHCS
I was wondering if it is possible to run GFS on several machines with a shared GFS LUN, but not use full clustering like RHCS. From the FAQs: Can I setup GFS on a single node and then add additional nodes later? Yes you can. For the initial single node setup, simply setup GFS using the nolock locking method. Make sure you create the file system with enough journals to support the number of nodes you wish to add later. (If you do not add enough, you can add journals later, but you must add additional space to the volume GFS is on to do so.) Once you want to add more nodes, you need to setup the cluster infrastructure just as you would in an initial multi-node configuration. You also need to modify the gfs superblock with gfs_tool to switch it to a multi-node locking setup. Use the values you would have given to gfs_mkfs - instead of the '-p ' flag to mkfs, use 'gfs_tool sb proto ', and instead of the '-t ' flag to mkfs, use 'gfs_tool sb table '. Once these changes and additions are made, fire up the cluster infrastructure and mount GFS. I would assume the answer is no, but since this page was published in 2004, I was hoping it is now possible. I would prefer to have a Cisco CSS front the servers and send clients to the preferred avaiable server for SAMBA shares, as long as the service is available on that server. If not, it could re-direct to a different server that is available. This would simplify the servers by not requiring clustering, and they would only require GFS and DLM for locking. Ideally, when SAMBA 4 is released with the ability to load balance the workload, I could allow the Cisco CSS to do full load balancing. Until then, it would simply act like a DNS change by talking to one server or the other. I have had a few problems with RHCS, and while it has done its job most of the time, if I can simplify the set up by simply moving an IP, it would be easier to manage and potentially more reliable. Fencing could be available, but if only one server is used at a time, would it be needed? The only other access to the disk I can think of, would be for backups reading from another node. Any suggestions would be helpful. Thanks Danny Wall # This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain private, proprietary, or legally privileged information. No privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it, and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. Health First reserves the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views or opinions expressed in this message are solely those of the individual sender, except (1) where the message states such views or opinions are on behalf of a particular entity; and (2) the sender is authorized by the entity to give such views or opinions. # -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
Re: [Linux-cluster] Using GFS and DLM without RHCS
Danny Wall wrote: I was wondering if it is possible to run GFS on several machines with a shared GFS LUN, but not use full clustering like RHCS. From the FAQs: First of all, what's the problem with having RHCS running? It doesn't mean you have to use it to handle resources failing over. You can run it all in active/active setup with load balancing in front. If this is not an acceptable solution for you and you still cannot be bothered to create cluster.conf (and that is all that is required), you can always use OCFS2. This doesn't have a cluster component (it's totally unrelated to RHCS), but you still have to create the equivalent config, so you won't be saving yourself any effort. Gordan -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
