Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:32:15 +0100, Michael Grant <mgrant at grant.org> wrote: > I'm about to set this up too. I almost hate to ask this, but is there > a general preference of OCFS2 over GFS for primary/primary use? Some people claim that OCFS2 goes faster than GFS, but I have yet to see any conclusive evidence for this in the general case. One thing to consider is what you are using it for. If you are configuring fail-over resources (e.g. IP addresses) and using OCFS2, you will also need heartbeat, and fencing agents for your hardware. OTOH, GFS required RHCS to be running, which handles fail-over resources and comes with fencing agents for a lot of commonly used hardware, so you can stick with a more streamlined, unified solution. My personal preference is for GFS because I'd rather have one config than two. YMMV. > With a primary/primary setup, is it advisable to have a > web/email/login server using the same file system? For mail, two > machines using the same /var/mail, for web and user files, I don't see > much problem. That depends on your use case. It depends on how your applications work and what your web stuff depends on (e.g. databases). Also not sure what you mean by login server. If you want to go completely shared on everything (including GFS root on DRBD), you may want to look at the Open Shared Root project. I submitted a patch to add support for DRBD in OSR last year, and have several such clusters in production. Gordan