Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
On 09/08/11 18:23, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 09:07:25AM -0700, SlingPirate wrote:
>>
>> Sorry about this it's just that I want to be absolutely certain.
>>
>> With the 3 node setup i could have both node 1& node 2 reading& writing at
>> the same time?
>>
>> Both local nodes would
>
> No, of course not. And that is not needed.
> How about one DRBD per VM backing store block device?
>
> But if you insist on the complexity of using image files on some cluster
> file system on dual primary DRBD, with proper fencing, of course,
> that's your call. That would not necessarily help to improve your
> availability, or performance, though.
>
>> Lars Ellenberg wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 08:47:12AM -0700, SlingPirate wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If I want to run VMs on both node 1& node 2 they would need to be setup
>>>> as
>>>> dual primaries, is this not the case?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>>> What I was trying to achive was two on-site servers that could fail over
>>>> to
>>>> one another OR in case both die node 3 runs all the servers (rather
>>>> slowly
>>>> of course!)
>>>
>>> Do a "classic" stacked three node setup.
>>>
>>>> Sorry for my ignorance but I dont quite understand your diagram for the
>>>> alternative.
>>>
>>> No need anymore...
>
What about of he wants to have HVM DomUs? Would he still be able to do
without the complexity of a cluster filesystem and image files?
I could be wrong, but that is what I understand from:
http://www.drbd.org/users-guide/s-xen-configure-domu.html
"There are three sets of circumstances under which you cannot use this
approach:
You are configuring a fully virtualized (HVM) domU."
thx!
B.