Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
On Tuesday 21 October 2008 23:35:27 Lars Ellenberg wrote: > I think in all areas drbd does better than nbd/iscsi + md raid1, > but I am happy to hear all ideas, and use them as inspiration > for future linux storage replication solutions. Inspiration. Happiness. Can try. But no promises. drdb cannot be a plug-in replacement for md raid1, as far as I know, since two drbd peers require two systems (or some very careful configuration on one system). It would be rather useful if one *could* replace MD RAID1 with DRBD. For example, if you could replicate a disk to a USB device, you could use drbd to make physical snapshots for off-line backups. You could also do a large sync over a local bus, rather than the network. Apart from getting two DRBD instances on one machine, the biggest ease-of-use barrier to to settings things seems to be attaching the correct meta-data to a block device -- the meta data does not seem to just know which device it is for. I think that the things that would make it easier are: * The ability to store DRBD meta-information *inside* the filesystem (not over VFS, but in a similar way to the ext3 /.journal if the filesystem supports immovable blocks). (It sounds easy, if you don't think about it.) Hands up everyone who uses ext3 with an external journal ... * An implicit way for DRBD to find its meta information - e.g. explicit config, internal meta-data, then on-filesystem meta-data, then a labelled device. (And if you can do this, the next request will be that DRBD makes use of the filesystem's journal, rather than using its own....)