DRBD is not active/active. I cannot utilize both server's as an active session. DRBD replication latency will, in-fact, break my storage.
I do not want active/passive or "hot-standby" failover... DRBD is offtopic from my original post, as it is not the correct solution.
Steven Crothers steven.crothers@gmail.com
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:07 AM, Digimer lists@alteeve.ca wrote:
On 11/17/2012 10:40 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
On 11/17/12 6:58 PM, Steven Crothers wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Digimerlists@alteeve.ca wrote:
You could take two nodes, setup DRBD to replicate the data (synchronously), manage a floating/virtual IP in pacemaker or
rgmanager
and export the DRBD storage as an iSCSI LUN using tgtd. Then you can migrate to the backup node, take down the primary node for maintenance and restore with minimal/no downtime. Run this over mode=1 bonding
with
each leg on two different switches and you get network HA as well.
There is nothing active/active about DRBD though, it also doesn't solve
the
problem of trying to utilize two heads.
It's just failover. Nothing more.
I'm looking for an active/active failover scenario, to utilize the
multiple
physical paths for additional throughput and bandwidth. Yes, I know I
can
add more nics. More nics doesn't provide failover of the physical node
any sort of active-active storage system has difficult issues with concurrent operations ...
Exactly what is discussed here, as linked in my other reply;
http://fghaas.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/dual-primary-drbd-iscsi-and-multipath...
-- Digimer Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/ What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without access to education? _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos