Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
On 4/23/11 9:59 PM, Patrick Egloff wrote: > > I got several pm urging me NOT to use active/active and OCFS2. > Hi, what were the stated reasons to avoid active/active OCFS2? Did they prefer GFS2 or just not like active/active? We have a few active/active clusters running OCFS2 and have not encountered many problems outside issues with folders with tens of thousands of small files. For larger files such as VMs, we see few issues. Please note that the active/active clusers in question tend to have most of the writes occuring on the A side and we do reads and maintenance on the B side, so perhaps our setup is more of an Active/Passsive (R/W mode). That being said. Active/Active with OCFS2 works very well and we are quite comfortable with it. It should also be said that Active/Passsive (not mounted) has much better performance, irregardless of the file system used. > > One more question. I have 2 ethernet ports. eth1 is used to link both > boxes together. > Should i use for DRBD + Heartbeat a different IP address and class > than on eth0 which is on the LAN ? > We do that so that its easier to know what network you are looking at when ssh'ed on the box. -bill