[DRBD-user] Multiple drbd devices

Lars Ellenberg lars.ellenberg at linbit.com
Thu Mar 11 13:06:12 CET 2010


On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:15:10AM +0000, Mark Watts wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 10:07 +0000, Guy wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I'm going to be installing some new storage servers fairly soon using
> > DRBD. I currently have 2 servers with this sort of config:
> > r0 Primary/Secondary
> > r1 Secondary/Primary
> > 
> > I'm considering changing to something like this:
> > r0 Primary/Secondary
> > r1 Primary/Secondary
> > r2 Primary/Secondary
> > r3 Secondary/Primary
> > r4 Secondary/Primary
> > r5 Secondary/Primary
> > 
> > on top of a 4x2TB RAID 10.
> > 
> > This is in the interests of splitting users (mailboxes) into smaller
> > partitions. Should a full sync ever be necessary then there's only be
> > 130G to sync rather than 950GB like I have now.
> > 
> > Are there any gotchas or good reasons that having multiple partitions
> > like that are a bad idea? The original configuration I had has worked
> > fine for ages apart from the servers not coping well with a full
> > resync while still being under load.
> > 
> > Thanks
> > Guy
> > 
> 
> It'll work, but I think you're optimistic in your resync numbers.
> If one node dies, requiring a full resync of a resource, chances are
> it'll need a full resync of _all_ resources.

There is basically no event left (appart from disk destruction,
low level meta data manipulation or severe misconfiguration)
that would require a _full_ resync.

-- 
: Lars Ellenberg
: LINBIT | Your Way to High Availability
: DRBD/HA support and consulting http://www.linbit.com

DRBD® and LINBIT® are registered trademarks of LINBIT, Austria.
__
please don't Cc me, but send to list   --   I'm subscribed


More information about the drbd-user mailing list