Gordan Bobic wrote: >> What is main reason for you not to use LVM on top of DRBD? Is it just >> that you didn't require benefits it brings? Or, it makes more >> problems by your opinion? > > Traditionally, CLVM didn't provide any tangible benefits (no > snapshots), and I never found myself in a situation where dynamically > growing a volume with randomly assembled storage was required. If you > are JBOD-ing a bunch of cheap SATA disks, you might as well size the > storage correctly to begin with and not have to bother with LVM. I'm > assuming this is what you are doing since you are doing it on the > cheap (SAN-less). If you are using a SAN, the SAN will provide > functionality to grow the exported block device and you can just grow > the fs onto that, without needing LVM. > > So apart from snapshots (non-clustered) or a setup like what was > suggested earlier, to have DRBD on top of local LVM to gain > local-consistency snapshot capability in a cluster (not sure I'd trust > that with my data, but it may be good for non-production > environments), I don't really see the advantage. Snapshots also only > give you crash-level consistency, which I never felt was good enough > for applications like databases. A replicated slave that you can shut > down is generally a more reliable solution for backups. Thank you for detailed response! I generally like idea of removing unneeded levels of technology. In case DRBD+GFS2 is used for shared storage, do I need cluster suite? Can GFS2 in this setup without cluster setup? Thanks, Nikola -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
