Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
> > if it is static, anyways, > why not have drbd on top of lvs, > and run "classical" Primary/Secondary per drbd/lv? > I would like this bug I have concerns about scaling to 24 drbds, see below. So let's say I was talking about" storage -> 1 drbd -> 24 LVs. I belive you're suggesting. storage -> 24 LVs -> 24 drbds (on per LV) I asked about this on the list a few days ago and got no response. I'll ask the same questions here: - Are there problems with this many drbds? What's the overhead of all those drbd worker threads and all those TCP connections vs. just one or two? - Working out the sync groups would be kind of tough. My underlying storage is a single big RAIDed mass of disks. Would I be better off to let all sync serially or randomly pick groups of three to keep the RAID busy? - Is there any way to specify a global sync rate so that if only one drbd is syncing it'll take the full sync rate, but 6 or 7 drbds syncing will collectively share that same sync rate? > pri/pri does basically work, > but is more complicated to handle. > I'm learning that during testing.