[DRBD-user] Question about server structure

Tim Mauerbach tim.mauerbach at googlemail.com
Thu Dec 23 22:18:32 CET 2010

Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.

On 12/23/2010 09:51 PM, Bart Coninckx wrote:
>>> 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
> When you scale your hardware correctly, you can get awesome results with DRBD.
Unfortunately we can´t scale our hardware really well, cheaply rented 
servers in foreign datacenters :-/ (no hardware raid controller + 7200er 

> I second JR's suggestions.
I tend to approach 1 as well. You and JR seem to prove that, I will skip 
idea 2.

  Just out of curiosity: what mailsystem, how many
> mailboxes and what storage are we talking?
We are talking about a small mailsystem with ~200 users 
(mariadb,postfix,dovcot,amavisd,clamav ...)

More information about the drbd-user mailing list