[Linux-cluster] replication

[y f]

On 7/7/06, David Siroky <ml at dasir.net> wrote:
>
> I didn't describe my plan very well.
>
> Lets look at this scenario:
> Now I have 1 server which is placed in a serverhousing company. Till now
> every problem with service interruption was a connection problem in the
> serverhousing company so the server (and its services) was sometimes
> unreachable even if the server was in a good shape and running. So now I
> would like to solve this by placing 3 servers in 3 serverhousing
> companies geographicaly spreaded. In this way I can't use SAN.


So you need a clusterfs and a CDN, but I wonder can the data be stransferred
realtime ?

DS
>
>
> Kovacs, Corey J. píše v Pá 07. 07. 2006 v 07:09 -0400:
> > Is there a specific reason you need to avoid shared storage? If there
> is,
> > then
> > you might look at Lustre which uses a bunch of host computers (OST's) as
> > storage engines and makes the files available to a single namespace. To
> be
> > really useful you need lots of OST's which are not consumers of the
> > filesystem.
> > The benefit is that you can add capacity and throughput by simply adding
> > OST's.
> > The bad thing is that there is no built in redundancy of OST's. They can
> be
> > made to be redundant by using other clustering technologies (such as
> RHCS)
> > but
> > for now, the OST's are not, by nature redundant. In the next year or so,
> they
> >
> > expect to be able to configure OST's as raid-1 and raid-5 personalities
> but
> > it
> > no where near that yet (raid-0 now). The other problem with this
> approach is
> > that
> > it costs quite a bit to implement due to hardware. So, that's why I ask
> if
> > you need to
> > avoid a shared storage solution for some reason. If not, then you might
> look
> > at
> > HP's MSA1500 entry level SAN. It can do active/active (for RHEL3) and
> > active/passive
> > for RHEL4 (not sure why the difference yet). They can be bought for
> around
> > 20k fully
> > loaded and redundant.
> >
> >
> > Anyway, in the long run, a low end san is really the way to go if you
> can
> > spend the cash..
> >
> >
> >
> > Corey
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: linux-cluster-bounces at redhat.com
> > [mailto:linux-cluster-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of David Siroky
> > Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 3:21 AM
> > To: linux clustering
> > Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster] replication
> >
> > This provides RW access only on 1 node at the time. I don't want
> fail-over. I
> > would like to have all nodes fully active and "equal".
> >
> > DS
> >
> >
> > Ramon van Alteren píše v Pá 07. 07. 2006 v 01:36 +0200:
> > > David Siroky wrote:
> > > > I want each node to have its own replica and I don't want to use
> > > > tools like unison or FAM/IMON. That's an asymmetric replication. Is
> > > > there any solution for this like some simple "network raid1" using
> GFS or
> > anything else?
> > > >
> > > > Can anyone show me the right direction?
> > >
> > > Check out drbd
> > > http://www.drbd.org/
> > >
> > > Grtz Ramon
> > >
> > > --
> > > Linux-cluster mailing list
> > > Linux-cluster at redhat.com
> > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
> >
> > --
> > Linux-cluster mailing list
> > Linux-cluster at redhat.com
> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
> >
> > --
> > Linux-cluster mailing list
> > Linux-cluster at redhat.com
> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
>
> --
> Linux-cluster mailing list
> Linux-cluster at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/linux-cluster/attachments/20060712/d65b8742/attachment.htm>