I guess that wouldn't work for load balancing though Mace Eliason wrote: > From what I have learned reading. What do people think about using > heart beat between two boxes, rsync to sync the www directories and > other files, and use mysql replication? > > My only question is I have found in the system that I setup with mysql > replication it worked great but if you remove one of the servers and > put it back in you have to stop mysql and copy over the newer database > and then restart both to get it to replicate correctly. > Is there a way to get replication to work so it will automatically > sync the master and slave without having to stop and copy and restart? > > > Bowie Bailey wrote: >> 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. >> >> > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > >