On 7/7/06, David Siroky <ml@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So you need a clusterfs and a CDN, but I wonder can the data be stransferred realtime ?
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.
So you need a clusterfs and a CDN, but I wonder can the data be stransferred realtime ?
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
-- Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
