[Linux-cluster] Looking for guidance
lpleiman at redhat.com
Mon Feb 22 20:42:08 UTC 2010
Check this out...
It provides nfs of the file system as a service to nodes outside the cluster. NFS from one node to the other is a real hack, you have nothing if the NFS server dies. The GFS(2) file system will need to be visible to both nodes (SAN, NAS, iSCSI). If you decide to use iSCSI, for the same reason as NFS, neither node should be the provider of the iSCSI target. You could further simplify by eliminating the GFS file system, use an ext3 (lvm) file system on a disk visible to both systems (SAN, NAS, or iSCSI) and managed by the cluster resource. You'll have to edit the lvm.conf to prevent clvd from starting the volume, allowing the cluster resource to manage it on only the active node.
Appendix A from the link below (Apache example) illustrates shared storage managed by cluster resources.
Leo J Pleiman
Red Hat Consulting Services
"Red Hat Ranked as #1 Software Vendor for Fifth Time in CIO Insight Study"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Beekhof" <andrew at beekhof.net>
To: "linux clustering" <linux-cluster at redhat.com>
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 2:52:34 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster] Looking for guidance
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 9:30 PM, Joseph L. Casale
<jcasale at activenetwerx.com> wrote:
> I am new to clusters, and have been reading up all the options but
> given I haven't any experience ever setting one up I don't know which
> option is best suited.
> I need to replicate a local volume between two servers, and export the
> data via nfs and rsyncd from either. They only need to be active/passive.
> I originally thought drbd and heartbeat v1 would be the simplest but looking
> at what's needed for nfs to work looks slightly hackish and I really don't
> know how well this will perform (It could very well be the best option).
I don;t think anyone on the project recommends Heartbeat v1 anymore.
At least use the crm/pacemaker extensions (http://clusterlabs.org) if
you're thinking about using Heartbeat in any way.
> After looking at alternatives, I figured the cluster suite from rhel might
> be a good supported option but given the two node, active/passive setup
> that looks like it is way over complicated.
> The need for fencing can be slightly mitigated by requiring manual intervention
> to rejoin a node that has left, it's not active/active HA I am looking for,
> but redundant data and weak ha through failover. The nodes are in two buildings
> connected by gig fiber.
> Any experienced ops have any insight into an approach best suited that
> I could settle on and start researching?
> Linux-cluster mailing list
> Linux-cluster at redhat.com
Linux-cluster mailing list
Linux-cluster at redhat.com
More information about the Linux-cluster