Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:15:10AM +0000, Mark Watts wrote: > On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 10:07 +0000, Guy wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'm going to be installing some new storage servers fairly soon using > > DRBD. I currently have 2 servers with this sort of config: > > r0 Primary/Secondary > > r1 Secondary/Primary > > > > I'm considering changing to something like this: > > r0 Primary/Secondary > > r1 Primary/Secondary > > r2 Primary/Secondary > > r3 Secondary/Primary > > r4 Secondary/Primary > > r5 Secondary/Primary > > > > on top of a 4x2TB RAID 10. > > > > This is in the interests of splitting users (mailboxes) into smaller > > partitions. Should a full sync ever be necessary then there's only be > > 130G to sync rather than 950GB like I have now. > > > > Are there any gotchas or good reasons that having multiple partitions > > like that are a bad idea? The original configuration I had has worked > > fine for ages apart from the servers not coping well with a full > > resync while still being under load. > > > > Thanks > > Guy > > > > It'll work, but I think you're optimistic in your resync numbers. > If one node dies, requiring a full resync of a resource, chances are > it'll need a full resync of _all_ resources. There is basically no event left (appart from disk destruction, low level meta data manipulation or severe misconfiguration) that would require a _full_ resync. -- : Lars Ellenberg : LINBIT | Your Way to High Availability : DRBD/HA support and consulting http://www.linbit.com DRBD® and LINBIT® are registered trademarks of LINBIT, Austria. __ please don't Cc me, but send to list -- I'm subscribed