On 29/01/2011 21:08, Alexander Schreiber wrote:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 12:23:14PM -0200, Denis wrote:
2011/1/29 Alexander Schreiber<als@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
plain disk performance for writes, while reads should be reasonably
close to the plain disk performance - drbd optimizes reads by just reading
from the local disk if it can.
However, I have not used it with active-active fashion. Have you? if yes,
what is your overall experience?
We are using drbd to provide mirrored disks for virtual machines running
under Xen. 99% of the time, the drbd devices run in primary/secondary
mode (aka active/passive), but they are switched to primary/primary
(aka active/active) for live migrations of domains, as that needs the
disks to be available on both nodes. From our experience, if the drbd
device is healthy, this is very reliable. No experience with running
drbd in primary/primary config for any extended period of time, though
(the live migrations are usually over after a few seconds to a minute at
most, then the drbd devices go back to primary/secondary).
Now that is interesting, to me at least. More as a thought experiment
for now, I was wondering how one would go about setting up a small
cluster of commodity servers (maybe 8 machines) running Xen (or perhaps
now KVM) VMs, such that if one (or potentially two) of the machines
died, the VMs could be picked up by the other machines in the cluster,
and only using locally-attached SATA/SAS discs in each machine.
I guess I'm talking about RAIN or RAIS rather than RAID so maybe I'd
better start reading the Wikipedia pages on those and not talk about it
on this list...
Cheers,
John.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
