Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
Il 25-08-2017 22:01 Digimer ha scritto: > On 2017-08-25 03:37 PM, Gionatan Danti wrote: > > The overhead of clustered locking is likely such that your VM > performance would not be good, I think. Mmm... I need to do some more testing with fio, it seems ;) > With raw clustered LVs backing the servers, you don't need cluster > locking on a per-IO basis, only on LV create/change/delete. Because LVM > is sitting on top of DRBD (in dual-primary), live-migration is no > trouble at all and performance is good, too. True. > GFS2, being a cluster FS, will work fine if a node is lost, provided it > is fenced succesfully. It's wouldn't be much of a cluster-FS otherwise. > :) So no problem with quorum? A loss of a system in a two-node cluster seems to wreack havok on other cluster filesystems (Gluster, for example...) Thanks. -- Danti Gionatan Supporto Tecnico Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it email: g.danti at assyoma.it - info at assyoma.it GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8