2009/4/20 Gordan Bobic <gordan@xxxxxxxxxx>
I´ll try to explain myself
I have a partition /dev/sda
/dev/sda on /iscsivol type ext3 (rw)
but this partition is a target iscsi on another server. I format the partition with ext3 but its not a local disk, is a target iscsi.
with this configuration I have the filesystem corrupted.
second scenario
I have
192.168.1.198:/nfsexport/ 6983168 2839168 3783552 43% /mnt
but the parttion 192.168.1.198:/nfsexport/ is again ext3 the diference is that I use nfs as network protocol instead of iscsi.
Yes I agree with you, but I thought with iscsi i can do the same as with NFS.
ok understand it,
but (always there is a but ...)
I only want to share a directory in which one node writes at one and when it fails the other node has the diretory mounted with the data and can write to it.
Before I have known about cluster my decission would been to mount the shares with NFS. Now I want to be more sofisticated and want to use cluster tools, so I thought to mount it with iSCSI instead of NFS, but always with the ext3 as the underlying filesystem.
Perphaps this is my mistake.
any suggestion that makes me see the light ;.)
TIA
ESG
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:18:22 +0200, ESGLinux <esggrupos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Not sure I understand your question. NFS is a network file system like CIFS
> Hello,
>
> first, thanks for your answer,
>
> I suspected it but why can i do it with NFS. ?
specifically designed to be mounted from multiple clients simultaneously.
ext3 is only designed with a single accessor in mind.
I´ll try to explain myself
I have a partition /dev/sda
/dev/sda on /iscsivol type ext3 (rw)
but this partition is a target iscsi on another server. I format the partition with ext3 but its not a local disk, is a target iscsi.
with this configuration I have the filesystem corrupted.
second scenario
I have
192.168.1.198:/nfsexport/ 6983168 2839168 3783552 43% /mnt
but the parttion 192.168.1.198:/nfsexport/ is again ext3 the diference is that I use nfs as network protocol instead of iscsi.
I still don't understand your question - that is what NFS is designed for.
> the nodes never are going to be active at the same time so I can mount
the
> shares via NFS. With NFS when I create a file in a share automatically i
> got it in the shared mounted by all the clients.
Yes I agree with you, but I thought with iscsi i can do the same as with NFS.
No, it's fundamentally impossible. In order to have a FS that can be
> In this case I don´t need to write to the share concurrently
>
> can be this configuration a problem?
mounted simultaneously from multiple nodes, it has to be aware of multiple
nodes accessing it, which means that it needs coherent caching. Local file
systems like ext3 don't have this. When one node writes to the ext3 file
system, the other node will have cached the inodes as they were originally,
and it won't bother hitting the disk to re-read the contents, it'll just
return what it already has cached. And almost certainly corrupt the file
system in the process.
You cannot have a shared ext3 volume with writing enabled. Period.
ok understand it,
but (always there is a but ...)
I only want to share a directory in which one node writes at one and when it fails the other node has the diretory mounted with the data and can write to it.
Before I have known about cluster my decission would been to mount the shares with NFS. Now I want to be more sofisticated and want to use cluster tools, so I thought to mount it with iSCSI instead of NFS, but always with the ext3 as the underlying filesystem.
Perphaps this is my mistake.
any suggestion that makes me see the light ;.)
TIA
ESG
Gordan
--
Linux-cluster mailing list
Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
-- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
