Hello,
I've really been trying to figure this out from the documentation, and
if it's in there, please point me at it.
Here is what I want to do. I have 4 machines, all connected to the same
SAN disk. 1 machine will be the only machine that can read and write to
the disk. The other 3 will be read only. The read only machines will
be the only ones that have outside services running, such as ftp, nfs,
rsync.
I don't have a reliable 5th machine. So I don't have a way to do an
external lock manager.
I don't want any failover, but I also don't want a single point of
failure. Basically if one of the read only machines goes dead, then
it's dead, nothing takes it's place, but the other machines can go right
on working. If the read, write machine goes dead, then it's dead, but
the read only machines can go right on doing what they normally do. And
if two or three machines die, I still want the one to still be able to
at least read the data.
This idea of fencing is what's throwing me off. If I'm reading things
right, I can't do group GFS without them being in a cluster, and they
can't be in a cluster without doing fencing. But the fencing seems to
just allow the various machines to take over for one another.
I also don't have access to the SAN switch, other than my machines plug
into it. It's essentially a black box. These machines also don't have
any way to remotely turn power on an off.
Is GFS what I really want? I've tried just standard ext3, but I was
getting a caching problem with my read only machines. Do I just want to
try and fix my caching problem?
Troy Dawson
--
__________________________________________________
Troy Dawson dawson@xxxxxxxx (630)840-6468
Fermilab ComputingDivision/CSS CSI Group
__________________________________________________
--
Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
