On 2017-07-17 03:07 PM, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Ian <ian.ninjabad...@gmail.com> said: >> I think a big advantage compared to native replication is that DRBD offers >> synchronous replication at the block level as opposed to the transaction >> level. > > However, just like RAID is not a replacement for backups, DRBD is IMHO > not a replacement for database replication. DRBD would just replicate > database files, so if for example file corruption would be copied from > host to host. When something provides a native replication system, it > is probably better to use that (or at least use it at one level).
You are absolutely correct. However, OP asked about DRBD vs SAN, not DRBD/SAN versus backup. Proper continuity planning requires redundancy (DRBD + clustering), backup and DR as three separate components. -- Digimer Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.com/w/ "I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops." - Stephen Jay Gould _______________________________________________ Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org http://lists.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
