[CentOS] gnbd vs drbd

[Rodrigo Barbosa]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 06:31:17AM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 00:59 -0200, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
> > Up until now, I have been using drbd for file custers with great success.
> > Yes, it is a PITA, and sometimes you can get annoying sincronization
> > issues (mostly on lab situations).
> > 
> > Now I have been considering giving gnbd (with cs/gfs) a try.
> > 
> > Do any of you ever crossed this path ? Any comparisons or comments ?
> 
> I use drbd, but that is because I am doing exactly what it was designed
> for (creating a backup, failover server ... setting side-by-side with a
> crossover cable in case of server failure).

That is exactly what I ever used it for. Either active/passive or
active/active clusters.

> I have no experience using gnbd for that, so I really can't comment on
> whether it might be better.

I'm leaning toward gnbd so I can use the CentOS kernel and csgfs
packages, without any "homebrewed" solutions.

[]s

- -- 
Rodrigo Barbosa
"Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur"
"Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFUJ45pdyWzQ5b5ckRAqllAKCW8eZtwRx+C527ZkXeMLY/Z6VbuwCeMOy1
2wLE6AjqKOcWcjz6sdhfMqs=
=voQM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----