I think the better question is this. How can I make my 2 physical servers that are identical into the best clustered solution sharing the storage between the 2. Server 1 is the main server and server 2 is the backup server. This is my set up now. Each is running Centos 5.3 I have virtualization set up on them so this is the setup: Dom0 These are the quests. 1. Samba 1 with 3 terabyte block device 2. Samba 2 with 2 terabyte block device 3. Samba 3 with 2 terabyte block device 4. Lotus Domino 3 terabyte block device. They all use xfs. I want to keep the guests the same on each server. I will start with the backup server. I will go on each vm and delete this FS and block device. I then want make that whole 10 terabyte raid into one gfs and then re-attach it back to each guest. Is that possible or do I have to start all over again? If it can be done I then will sync the date from the mainserver to this backup server and then switch them and do the same to the mainserver. I have one more question which is another whole thread. I am using rsync to sync the 2 physical boxes now. Is there a better way to do this? On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Ben M. <centos at rivint.com> wrote: > Rich wrote: > > I want to make the 10 terabytes raid an xfs filesystem and then share > > the drive with all 4 of the vm's. 3 of the servers will be samba > > servers and one will be my Lotus notes server. I want to make the > > filesystem /data and then each one of the servers will use specific sub > > directories. I have it set up as block devices now but I want the > > flexibility of having the whole 10 terabytes available to all 4 servers. > > > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:28 AM, Christopher G. Stach II <cgs at ldsys.net > > <mailto:cgs at ldsys.net>> wrote: > > > > ----- "Adam Adamou" <adam0x54 at gmail.com <mailto:adam0x54 at gmail.com>> > > wrote: > > > > > either nfs or ocfs2. nfs is the easiest route. ocfs2 will give you > a > > > clustered filesystem. > > > > Except NFS doesn't follow normal filesystem semantics and you can > > end up with corrupt data without knowing it, and it, along with > > CIFS, will give you a free shitload of network overhead to go along > > with your possibly corrupt data. OCFS2 or GFS are the only practical > > choices if you want it to behave like a typical filesystem and not > > have to worry about catering to it or rewriting software and/or > > reeducating developers, and OCFS2 is extremely easy to set up. > > > > The original question didn't specify much about the requirements, > > though. A single shared filesystem? Read-write or read-only? No > > filesystem at all? Without that information, I would at first > > recommend not sharing. It can be a lot of trouble, it's usually not > > required, and it severely complicates life when things fail. > > > > Well, there is always XenFS... :/ > > > > -- > > Though dated, this article is interesting regarding this thread. The > article needs to be updated (Last Modified = June 2006), and rewritten > for CentOS Xen virtualization, but it looks sound upon my first reading: > > <http://xenamo.sourceforge.net/> > > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS-virt mailing list > CentOS-virt at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-virt/attachments/20100209/47027c54/attachment-0006.html>