Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
2010/12/23 J. Ryan Earl <oss at jryanearl.us> > On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Tim Mauerbach < > tim.mauerbach at googlemail.com> wrote: > >> I am thinking about the structure of a new mailserver on top of >> raid1/lvm/xen. >> >> Two different approaches come to my mind: >> >> 1. One big LV as DRBD backing device for the whole guest (os + data). >> 2. One small LV without drbd for the base system + one big LV as DRBD >> backing device only for data (maildirs+mariadb). >> >> Is the maintenance overhead of 2 worth the performance gain? >> > > I'd definitely go with 1, and it has nothing to do with performance. If > you put the whole VM on top of DRBD, and then make that a primary/primary > (aka active/active) DRBD then you can live-migrate the VM between host > and/or use Remus VM-mirroring for VM-HA. I don't see why anyone would ever > go with 2 as leaving the OS unreplicated on the small LV exposes you to big > potential downtime as you rebuild a new OS for the replicated-data in the > event of a failure. Am I misinterpreting what you mean? > > -JR > Thanks for your input. You´re right. It has nothing to do with performance, I meant efficiency: The idea of 2 is to prevent live-replication of not that important non-user data (os + tmp|log files) that could be replicated via rsync at midnight. Thus I could use my DRBD capacity more efficiently and only for important data, though at the expense of maintainability. Best Regards Tim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linbit.com/pipermail/drbd-user/attachments/20101223/0addadf8/attachment.htm>