Greetings, On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Jonathan Horne <loudredz71@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > what im not understanding is, whats the point of creating the > file system as a service? > what, is this also going to be passed back and forth between > hosts? Consider a customer who cannot afford Oracle RAC and chooses active/passive configuration for DB. Let us say, a particular app is certified to run on RHEL/CentOS 4. Customer wants support of OS/DB etc and is ready to pay for it. Customer doesn't want to pay for GFS as it is additional in RHEL 4. Then the underlying filesystem probably would be default ext3, Add to that the PHBs that one has handle. Filesystem as a service makes complete sense as the oracle, VIP _and_ ext3 would be switched back and forth. makes sense? > i would think the file system should be available 100% of the > time to both hosts. > see above. There is GFS available. Besides, for apps like DB, unless clustering is build into the DB for cache coherency and the such (like RAC), it would be dangerous to allow different instances on different nodes to access the same filesystem. HTH Regards, Rajagopal -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
