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.