[DRBD-user] DRBD and (C)LVM

Manuel Prinz manuel.prinz at uni-due.de
Sun Nov 7 01:32:19 CET 2010


On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 11:21:34AM -0500, J. Ryan Earl wrote:
> So I'd recommend RAID 60 (aka 0+6), with the "0" part being in software, and
> the "6" being in hardware; hopefully those controllers have nice backed
> write caches.

Sounds reasonable. I'll try that setup.

> Well, good luck.  When SuSE marked "OCFS2" production ready in SLES I think
> they did a lot of people a injustice.  It was not ready, and speaking for
> considerable use of it over the years, there are certain stress cases where
> it will fail.  Whether you'll hit those cases is a different matter.

I've not made my mind up on that. But thanks for that warning! Maybe GFS2 is
the better choice, then.

> It was unrelated to your original line of questioning which was running a
> clustered filesystem on-top DRBD.  I have no idea what you're trying to do,
> your goals are not clear.

Sorry for being unclear! The goal is to have a redundant, high-available file
server. I'd like both my boxes to share the same data and being able to failover
in case one of them dies. DRBD+CLVM seemed to be a most reasonable solution. My
question was indeed not in the line of my original question. I was just wondering
how to make this storage accessible to other nodes in the network. iSCSI seems to
be the preferred solutions. But maybe I should ask these questions on the linux-ha
list.

Thanks for your answers so far, they were very helpful! (And improved further
research on the topic.)

Best regards,
Manuel


More information about the drbd-user mailing list