Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
Florian Haas wrote: > On Wednesday 05 December 2007 01:37:00 Kelly Byrd wrote: > >>> And is it correct that DRBD only supports a single IP per machine using >>> the "address" directive? In that case the redundant link is only useful >>> for HeartBeat, but not to DRBD? >>> >> Use the bonded driver. Depending on the bond mode, you can get just >> redundancy or you get increased bandwidth and redundancy. >> > > Correct, but > > - increased bandwidth isn't worth much for improving DRBD performance unless > your disk I/O subsystem can indeed write faster than 110 MB/s (unlikely in > the case of Bas' servers I suppose); > - added redundancy doesn't make a huge difference in case you are using > crossover cables between nodes (which, when they fail due to hardware issues, > typically don't fail in a way that the bonding driver would detect). > > If and when you're running DRBD replication over switches, you had better make > sure that your cables are routed through physically separate switches hooked > to independent power sources. Otherwise, again, bonding doesn't do you any > good either. > > Our recommendation thus is generally to use a passive (i.e. back-to-back) > network connection for your DRBD replication. Crossover cable is highly > likely to provide the best MTBF. Add Heartbeat with that connection and a > separate one via your switched LAN, plus dopd, and you're good to go. > Yes, but as I said: I'm still using DRBD 0.7 and dopd seems to be part of DRBD 0.8? -- Bas