Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
On Thursday 23 December 2010 22:18:32 Tim Mauerbach wrote: > 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 ...) Should be no problem whatsoever with recent hardware which is decently scaled. Good luck with it, B.