-----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)