I didn't describe my plan very well. Lets look at this scenario: Now I have 1 server which is placed in a serverhousing company. Till now every problem with service interruption was a connection problem in the serverhousing company so the server (and its services) was sometimes unreachable even if the server was in a good shape and running. So now I would like to solve this by placing 3 servers in 3 serverhousing companies geographicaly spreaded. In this way I can't use SAN. DS Kovacs, Corey J. píše v Pá 07. 07. 2006 v 07:09 -0400: > Is there a specific reason you need to avoid shared storage? If there is, > then > you might look at Lustre which uses a bunch of host computers (OST's) as > storage engines and makes the files available to a single namespace. To be > really useful you need lots of OST's which are not consumers of the > filesystem. > The benefit is that you can add capacity and throughput by simply adding > OST's. > The bad thing is that there is no built in redundancy of OST's. They can be > made to be redundant by using other clustering technologies (such as RHCS) > but > for now, the OST's are not, by nature redundant. In the next year or so, they > > expect to be able to configure OST's as raid-1 and raid-5 personalities but > it > no where near that yet (raid-0 now). The other problem with this approach is > that > it costs quite a bit to implement due to hardware. So, that's why I ask if > you need to > avoid a shared storage solution for some reason. If not, then you might look > at > HP's MSA1500 entry level SAN. It can do active/active (for RHEL3) and > active/passive > for RHEL4 (not sure why the difference yet). They can be bought for around > 20k fully > loaded and redundant. > > > Anyway, in the long run, a low end san is really the way to go if you can > spend the cash.. > > > > Corey > > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Siroky > Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 3:21 AM > To: linux clustering > Subject: Re: replication > > This provides RW access only on 1 node at the time. I don't want fail-over. I > would like to have all nodes fully active and "equal". > > DS > > > Ramon van Alteren píše v Pá 07. 07. 2006 v 01:36 +0200: > > David Siroky wrote: > > > I want each node to have its own replica and I don't want to use > > > tools like unison or FAM/IMON. That's an asymmetric replication. Is > > > there any solution for this like some simple "network raid1" using GFS or > anything else? > > > > > > Can anyone show me the right direction? > > > > Check out drbd > > http://www.drbd.org/ > > > > Grtz Ramon > > > > -- > > > > Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster > > -- > > Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster > > -- > > Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster -- Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
