DRBD is not active/active. I cannot utilize both server's as an active session. DRBD replication latency will, in-fact, break my storage. I do not want active/passive or "hot-standby" failover... DRBD is offtopic from my original post, as it is not the correct solution. Steven Crothers steven.crothers at gmail.com On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:07 AM, Digimer <lists at alteeve.ca> wrote: > On 11/17/2012 10:40 PM, John R Pierce wrote: > > On 11/17/12 6:58 PM, Steven Crothers wrote: > >> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Digimer<lists at alteeve.ca> wrote: > >> > >>>> You could take two nodes, setup DRBD to replicate the data > >>>> (synchronously), manage a floating/virtual IP in pacemaker or > rgmanager > >>>> and export the DRBD storage as an iSCSI LUN using tgtd. Then you can > >>>> migrate to the backup node, take down the primary node for maintenance > >>>> and restore with minimal/no downtime. Run this over mode=1 bonding > with > >>>> each leg on two different switches and you get network HA as well. > >>>> > >> There is nothing active/active about DRBD though, it also doesn't solve > the > >> problem of trying to utilize two heads. > >> > >> It's just failover. Nothing more. > >> > >> I'm looking for an active/active failover scenario, to utilize the > multiple > >> physical paths for additional throughput and bandwidth. Yes, I know I > can > >> add more nics. More nics doesn't provide failover of the physical node > > > > > > any sort of active-active storage system has difficult issues with > > concurrent operations ... > > Exactly what is discussed here, as linked in my other reply; > > > http://fghaas.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/dual-primary-drbd-iscsi-and-multipath-dont-do-that/ > > -- > Digimer > Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/ > What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without > access to education? > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >