On 11/11/05, Michael Will <mwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I don't see why that should be a problem, thats a common solution we > recommend to > customers even without GFS, doing just ordinary NFS and using heartbeat, > active/passive > is uncritical.You can even have two NFS mounts of separate partitions > and have an active/active > that fails over the missing one if one of the two machines goes down. > This means you mount one > from one IP address and the other from the other, and the IP address > gets migrated over. > > This can even be done with SCSI attached storage (4TB per enclosure, up > to two connected to > a 1U server), but of course the fibre attached storage (direct attached > as well as a complete san) > is considered more reliable and performant. > > Michael Will Thanks Michael. We had a call with our hardware vendor and spoke about the SAN solution after which they sent us a working estimate of costs for a 7 server cluster. If we are able to use the aforementioned storage solution in place of a fibre SAN we stand to save a significant amount of money for an application that our IT department just doesn't think it's necessary. We've got another call with them next week where they are going to try to convince us that we're wrong and need to buy the SAN, I just want to make sure I don't look like an idiot when they get one of their engineers on the call and explain where I'm wrong and I'm not able to defend myself. The reason I'm planning on using GNBD and GFS instead of NFS is that the storage will be used in part by a proprietary application that doesn't support storage on NFS. I also need to allow the webservers to mount the same data and from what I understand locking would be a problem on an NFS mount. Thanks again. -- Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
