Sorry for the delay, I was on vacation, then catching up from being on
vacation.
Basically, our Fiber Channel switch is hands off to me. Not that I
don't have access to the password, but there are several much more
important things connected to that switch. If I were to mess them up,
or cause them to go down for a bit ... well that wouldn't be good.
It looks like I'm going to be going with the power switch option. The
rack my macines are in doesn't currently have controllable power, put
it's in the works, so I guess I'll just be patient.
Troy
JACOB_LIBERMAN@xxxxxxxx wrote:
Troy,
What is the model/vendor of the switch? What are the models/vendors of
the servers? I ran into a similar problem in our lab (no network power
switches) and there are a few ways to get around that problem.
Thanks, jacob
-----Original Message-----
From: linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Troy Dawson
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 8:43 AM
To: linux clustering
Subject: Simplest 4 node GFS 6.1 cluster
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
