On 08/24/2015 06:20 PM, Digimer wrote: > Cluster locking comes at a performance cost. All locks need to be > coordinated between the nodes, and that will always be slower that local > locking only. They are also far less commonly used than options like nfs.
right. > Using a pair of nodes with a traditional file system exported by NFS and > made accessible by a floating (virtual) IP address gives you redundancy > without incurring the complexity and performance overhead of cluster > locking. Then you have to copy all data on the network, which limits data throughput. > Also, you won't need clvmd either. The trade-off through is > that if/when the primary fails, the nfs daemon will appear to restart to > the users and that may require a reconnection (not sure, I use nfs > sparingly). AFAIK NFS failover includes an NFS timeout, which can be tuned but might give you an extra time till the failover will be finished by the client perspective. > Generally speaking, I recommend always avoiding cluster FSes unless > they're really required. Full ACK. greetings Kai Dupke Senior Product Manager Server Product Line -- Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor liberty to purchase power. Phone: +49-(0)5102-9310828 Mail: [email protected] Mobile: +49-(0)173-5876766 WWW: www.suse.com SUSE Linux GmbH - Maxfeldstr. 5 - 90409 Nuernberg (Germany) GF:Felix Imendörffer,Jane Smithard,Graham Norton,HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) _______________________________________________ Users mailing list: [email protected] http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
