-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
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 ?
TIA,
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
I have used GNBD for xen migration and works like a champ and is also recommended by xen team. I dont know if that helps.
On 11/7/06, Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@darkover.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
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 ?
TIA,
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)
iD8DBQFFT/Z1pdyWzQ5b5ckRAiXlAJ9gAJNtx7amdZJ2gKfAsxmRSCm/zwCfYy9D zr7kN3JjBz1HY/5zgT0ylq8= =6FOA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 05:50:19PM +0530, saptarshi naha wrote:
I have used GNBD for xen migration and works like a champ and is also recommended by xen team. I dont know if that helps.
Very useful information. Tkx.
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 00:59 -0200, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
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).
I have no experience using gnbd for that, so I really can't comment on whether it might be better.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
-----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)
On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 06:31 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
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).
I have no experience using gnbd for that, so I really can't comment on whether it might be better.
I can't help, but I'll add another question: Has anyone tried software raid over iscsi to get the same effect?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 12:43:45PM -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
I can't help, but I'll add another question: Has anyone tried software raid over iscsi to get the same effect?
No, but I would be very interested.
Maybe GFS + software raid + iscsi ?
[]s
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
-
Johnny Hughes -
Les Mikesell -
Rodrigo Barbosa -
saptarshi naha