Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
> Is drbd fine with that amount of diskspace? What caveats will I face? > Your experience? In my experience one can use drbd using multi TB filesystems. No flamebaits involved but the filesystem type can make it stable or unstable. Also you really want to keep the meta-data seperate to increase your options when disaster strikes. This will keep the on-disk structure identical to a none drbd and hence you can even mount it without drbd. Again, only as last resort *if* you're in big troubles. Since using drbd for more then six months on multiple multi TB servers I never lost data. Among the servers are different storage backends (scsi connected sata cabinets) and directly connected sata disks using Areca pci-express controllers. All this is my personal view but here we go: +++ Filesystem must be rock stable: ext3 with both meta and block journal ++ Lower the nr. of inodes, in context of ext3 (mkfs.ext3 -i 102400 for example ) +Use the meta-disk seperate partition option ( meta-disk /dev/sdc2[0]; ) +Use 9000 bytes of MTU size using high quality nics ( Intel PRO ). Over the last years, actualy using, large filesystems on xfs/reiser always gave troubles [ filesystems totallty wracked, inaccesible files etc etc. ]. Filesystems I trust are: vxfs on Solaris, ufs2 on FreeBSD and ext3 on Linux. We got five clusters running with filesystems like: /dev/drbd0 1.4T 920G 436G 68% /part1 /dev/drbd1 1.4T 963G 393G 72% /part2 /dev/drbd2 1.4T 1.3T 93G 94% /part3 --Leroy