On 7/7/06, Kovacs, Corey J. <cjk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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).
True, however, failover for OSS require OST come from shared storage, or, if using local drives on server, you want to replicate (drbd) and integrate with linux-ha and a stonith device. Active/active or active/passive scenarios can both be easily designed -- given hardware, etc. -- Mustafa A. Hashmi mahashmi@xxxxxxxxx mh@xxxxxxxxxx -- Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
