Hello,
what do you mean by "true" clustering ?
We can do a Windows Failover cluster (1 virtual ip, 1 virtual name), but this mean using a shared storage like SAN.
Then it depends on your network topology. If you have multiple geographical sites / datacenter, then DFS-R behave a lot better than Gluster in replicated mode. Users won't notice any latency,
At the price that replication is async.
2015-08-10 7:26 GMT+02:00 Ira Cooper <ira@xxxxxxxxxx>:
Mathieu Chateau <mathieu.chateau@xxxxxxx> writes:
> I do have DFS-R in production, that replaced sometimes netapp ones.
> But no similar workload as my current GFS.
>
> In active/active, the most common issue is file changed on both side (no
> global lock)
> Will users access same content from linux & windows ?
If you want to go active/active. I'd recommend Samba + CTDB + Gluster.
You want true clustering, and a system that can handle the locking etc.
I'd layer normal DFS to do "namespace" control, and to help with
handling failover, or just use round robin DNS.
Thanks,
-Ira
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
