> I always used the second option and I never found any problem Sounds good, but is there any documentation on this subject? I would like to advise a conversion to the separate LUN set-up, but I need to convince the administrators to switch from the current set-up. (which presumable was advised by RedHat) 2012/1/25 Jan Huijsmans <Jan.Huijsmans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jan.Huijsmans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Hello, When checking the RedHat cluster set-up I was surprised to find the quorum disk located on the same LUN as the database. This location was chosen because the database LUN needs to be accessible for the node to be able to service the environment. It's a logical choice. However, at this moment we're experiencing latency on the storage, which also hinders the usage of the qdisk. There are lots of time-outs on disk activity which won't hinder the application much, at least when the cluster won't reboot due to time-outs on the qdisk. For me the logical choice for the qdisk would be a separate LUN on a fast disk, we have a quorum disk library for the SAN with unused disks, instead on the same LUN that's being used by the application. (in a cabinet that's used by the complete environment. This way the qdisk can be fast and it's a real quorum LUN, as it's located on the quorum location of the SAN controllers. My main question is which method would give the most stable environment for the cluster. 1. qdisk on same LUN as application 2. qdisk on separate, isolated, LUN I would choose the second option, but I'm not sure which would give the stability I'm seeking. Greetings, Jan Huijsmans -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster -- esta es mi vida e me la vivo hasta que dios quiera -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
