|
hmmmm.. OK. So it looks like we can do what we want to do with or
without GFS, and it looks like I was also misinformed about the
cost/availability. Interesting. I guess I know what I'll be doing
over the next couple of days then. Thanks for all of the quick,
informative, responses. I'm sure I'll have more questions in the
coming days. Regards, Randy Michael Patrimonio wrote: No, it does not require administrator interaction--in the service you would add a resource for the file system. This would move the file system between nodes. ===== ________________________________ From: linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Randy Brown Sent: Mon 8/20/2007 16:39 To: linux clustering Subject: Re: Please correct me if I'm wrong, but... Right. That's the way I understood it to be. Using ext3 would require us to have to umount and remount the file systems to the each host after the failure, though, correct? In other words, would require administrator interaction. GFS would do this automatically without impacting the users. Randy Lon Hohberger wrote: On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 03:26:08PM -0400, Randy Brown wrote: in order to configure a two-node high availability NFS failover cluster, I need to use GFS, correct? You can use EXT3; you just can only mount the file system on one node at a time. With GFS, you can export the same file system from *both* cluster nodes. -- Lon |
begin:vcard fn:Randy Brown n:Brown;Randy org:National Weather Service;Office of Hydrologic Development adr;dom:;;1325 East West Highway;Silver Spring;MD;20910 email;internet:randy.brown@xxxxxxxx title:Network Administrator tel;work:301-713-1669 x110 tel;cell:443-794-6818 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.weather.gov/ohd/ version:2.1 end:vcard
-- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
