Fabian Arrotin wrote: > On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 12:49 -0700, Dan Trainor wrote: > > > > > > > For the backend storage, it depends what's your budget ... :o) > > > A minimal setup is to use nfs on a central server to host/share > > > the same data across all your machines ... the problem in this > > > config is that the nfs server becomes the single point of failure > > > ... so why not using a simple heartbeat solution for 2 nfs > > > servers acting as one and uses drdb between these 2 nodes for the > > > replication ... > > > Other method is to have a dedicate san with hba in each > > > webservers but that's another budget ... :o) > > > > > > Just my two cents ... > > > > > > > > > > > HI, Fabian - > > > > I've been toying aroudn with both NFS and GFS, but NFS does leave me > > with a single point of failure. I'd rather not use something like > > drdb, however. I'm still researching GFS to see if it's a viable > > alternative for what I'm looking for. > > > > Thanks! > > -dant > > GFS can do the job, but in this case you should have a real shared > storage to permit all the servers to access the shared data in the > same time ... > If you don't want to invest a lot, you can still use iscsi but the > single point of failure still exists ... It tends to be expensive to do away with all points of failure. The best you can do on a budget is try to limit your points of failure to things that tend to have a long lifespan (i.e. almost anything other than servers and individual hard drives). For another (relatively) low-cost option, check out the AoE storage appliances from Coraid.com. Mine is still in testing, but it was very easy to configure with CentOS4 and I haven't found any problems with it so far. I currently have a 1.2TB storage area shared between three CentOS servers with GFS. -- Bowie