Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
On 12/23/2010 09:51 PM, Bart Coninckx wrote: >>> I'd definitely go with 1, and it has nothing to do with performance. If >>> > > you put the whole VM on top of DRBD, and then make that a primary/primary >>> > > (aka active/active) DRBD then you can live-migrate the VM between host >>> > > and/or use Remus VM-mirroring for VM-HA. I don't see why anyone would >>> > > ever go with 2 as leaving the OS unreplicated on the small LV exposes >>> > > you to big potential downtime as you rebuild a new OS for the >>> > > replicated-data in the event of a failure. Am I misinterpreting what >>> > > you mean? >>> > > >>> > > -JR >> > >> > Thanks for your input. >> > You´re right. It has nothing to do with performance, I meant efficiency: >> > >> > The idea of 2 is to prevent live-replication of not that important non-user >> > data (os + tmp|log files) that could be replicated via rsync at midnight. >> > Thus I could use my DRBD capacity more efficiently and only for important >> > data, though at the expense of maintainability. >> > >> > Best Regards >> > Tim > When you scale your hardware correctly, you can get awesome results with DRBD. Unfortunately we can´t scale our hardware really well, cheaply rented servers in foreign datacenters :-/ (no hardware raid controller + 7200er disks) > I second JR's suggestions. I tend to approach 1 as well. You and JR seem to prove that, I will skip idea 2. Just out of curiosity: what mailsystem, how many > mailboxes and what storage are we talking? We are talking about a small mailsystem with ~200 users (mariadb,postfix,dovcot,amavisd,clamav ...)