-----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) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFUJ45pdyWzQ5b5ckRAqllAKCW8eZtwRx+C527ZkXeMLY/Z6VbuwCeMOy1 2wLE6AjqKOcWcjz6sdhfMqs= =voQM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----