On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 04:50:38PM -0500, Nate Carlson wrote: > >With lock_gulm, you can run with a single lock manager or redundant lock > >managers. In a redundant lock manager config, you generally have 3-5 > >lock managers. One is elected the master lock manager and the others are > >slaves. If the master loses conenctivity to the other nodes, the > >majority of the remaining nodes will elect a new master. > > > >The other consideration when using lock_gulm with RLM is that lockserver > >nodes must be fenced from network and the storage, so simply fencing on > >a fibre switch port is not suffiencient. These means that you need > >network power switches to fence the lock servers. > > Got'cha. I should have the boxes on Masterswitches, so should be fine > there. The only time a box would need to be fenced is when it loses > communication, right? (So I'd still be ok running virtual machines on the > lock servers.) right. You should just need to come up with a fencing agent for the virtual machines. -- Michael Conrad Tadpol Tilstra Do infants have as much fun in infancy as adults do in adultery?
Attachment:
pgpVZgWywcOUN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
