Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
On Saturday, October 14, 2006 Mustafa A. Hashmi wrote: > On 10/10/06, Dan Brown <danb at zu.com> wrote: > > > > So while server A is the active NFS server and server B is > passive and > > only synching, both servers would mount via NFS server A. > When server > > A goes down for whatever reason (reboot, crash, etc) server > B will take over and > > continue where server A left off. One thing I keep seeing > in various > > documents however is a warning not to have the server mount its own > > NFS shares. There is never reason (even a vague reason) > given why not > > to however. I can see the obvious reasons (eg. infinitely nested > > filesystems via symlinks/mounts, crossmounts, etc), but my > directory structures should > > not need anything like this at all. Other than overall > system complexity, > > I don't see any reasons to not be able to self mount NFS > with a whole > > lot of trouble. > > Odd -- the NFS-HA howto shows how to do exactly this. Also: > we've deployed this for mail and web without issues this far, > albeit, in a non-complex environment. You mean the one at http://linux-ha.org/HaNFS ? It examples a setup with to HA NFS servers, and two clients (although not specifiying whether they are one in the same) . This, along with a fair number of other articles I've read on using DRBD and NFS all have something like this (from the linux-ha.org page): "NFS-mounting any filesystem on your NFS servers is highly discouraged." But none of them ever really give a good explanation(if at all) why. Having not done much with NFS before, and certainly not in a production environment, I don't have the experience with NFS to understand many reasons behind this sort of statement. __________________________________________________________ Dan Brown danb at zu.com