[DRBD-user] DRBD and (C)LVM

J. Ryan Earl oss at jryanearl.us
Tue Nov 2 20:50:05 CET 2010


On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Manuel Prinz <manuel.prinz at uni-due.de>wrote:

> A short introduction: I have two RAID arrays which I'd like to join via
> LVM (as PVs) and replicate them via DRBD.
>

2 RAID arrays *per host* you mean?  How are your RAID arrays configured?


>
> First, I can think of two solutions to that:
>
>     A. Create two DRBD resources on top of the arrays. The DRBD
>        resource would be on each of /dev/sd[bc]. The two DRBD resources
>        would be used as PV and the VG and LV(s) created on top of that.
>        The FS would reside on the LV.
>     B. Create one DRBD resouce on top of an LV. Both /dev/sd[bc] would
>        be used as PV. A LV would be created, with a DRBD resource on
>        top. The FS would reside on the DRBD resource.
>

I recommend:

C. Create an software RAID0 'md' device between your two array controllers.
 Use the md device as your backing storage.  Put LVM on top of the final
DRBD device.


> I did not find any information about which setup two prefer.


B is particularly bad, there is no reason you should ever do this.  In
general, 'md' performance beats LVM performance when it comes to striping
and aggregating block devices.  A is going to be a bigger headache to manage
than C and you may incur some extra CLVM overhead with the 2 shared PVs.


> Second, I have some questions regarding Active/Active setups. I
> understand the need of a FS that has support for distributed locking. If
> such a setup runs on top of LVM, would I need CLVM or is LVM with
> locking_type=3 sufficient?


"CLVM" and "LVM" with locking_type=3 are pretty much the same thing.  For
locking_type=3 to be used, the clvmd service needs to be running but yea,
changing the locking type to 3 is what turns LVM into CLVM.


> Do I need to pass --clustered=y to vgcreate?
>

Or later modify the VG to be clustered.  The VG must be clustered, which
means all the RHCS cluster infrastructure must be running including clvmd.


> As there should be no problem with concurrent access, is STONITH
> required in such a setup? The LinuxTag white paper disables it but does
> not give an explanation. I guess it's because of the FS but am not sure.
>

Fencing is required for cman and thus CLVM and GFS2.  Not sure why you think
there should be no concurrent access issues, there are.


> There's also a lot of FUD on the net regarding GFS2 and OCFS2,
> especially in regards to PaceMaker integration. Is GFS2 really better
> integrated and more reliable?
>

GFS2 is an enterprise ready, stable, proven, robust clustered filesystem
with OK performance.  I'd definitely say OCFS2 of 1.2.x and earlier did not
qualify as that.  There were/are outstanding bugs open for years.  I haven't
done any work with OCFS2-1.4.x which was released a few months ago.  How
about you go bleeding edge and let us all know if you're willing to do the
leg work and/or take the risk. :-)


> Last, I wonder what's the best solution to export the storage to other
> nodes. I have bad experiences with NFS, and iSCSI looks like the way to.
> With a DLM-aware FS it should be OK to access them from several nodes.
> Or is there a better way to export the storage to other nodes?
>

 Now you're in a different land.  I thought you were talking about putting a
clustered file-system on your DRBD nodes.

-JR
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linbit.com/pipermail/drbd-user/attachments/20101102/63034c3c/attachment.htm>


More information about the drbd-user mailing list