Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
On Fri, 2004-04-23 at 13:02, Nuno Tavares wrote: > Regarding if I need or not DRBD: I'm studying (Open)GFS, (Open)AFS and > Intermezzo, as well as DRBD. > I really liked what you are doing here, but I need a solution *fast*. Assuming you need fault-resistence, OpenGFS is a bad choice. OpenGFS does not yet have a released version without a SPOF (single point of failure). In all released versions the lock server (memexp) is a SPOF. Intel and CA have engineers working on integrating OpenDLM with OpenGFS. Once that is done, OpenGFS will be configurable to use OpenDLM instead of memexp. Pre-alpha quality code for that is available in their respective cvs repositories, but nothing usable even if you assume all the nodes are functional. They are just now starting on the node failure cases. FYI: I have no knowledge about GFS. I don't even know if it is still commercial, or if it has already been make opensource. (Redhat bought Sistina in Jan., and per their press release they were going to opensource GFS. I think the plan is to eventually get GFS into a supported Redhat release.) Greg -- Greg Freemyer