Am Mo, den 19.04.2004 schrieb George Georgalis um 19:28: > >As you already wrote - DRBD is a block device, not a filesystem. You > >have to run a filesystem (like reiserfs oder ext3) on top of it, just as > >you would have to with a "normal" block device like a SCSI RAID. > > > >Comparing DRBD to NFS or AFS, well, apples and oranges... > > of course you have to install a fs on a block device. the question was > about network filesystem operability. DRBD to NFS seems like a fair > comparison to me, since they are different.
As I understand Andreas, he wants to replace NFS with something different as he has problems with access rights - DRBD is no solution for this problem (as it is no filesystem). You can use DRBD to get a redundant (active/passive) block device using a two-node cluster setup, so you can access your data on the backup node as soon as the primary goes down. You currently CANNOT mount a DRBD block-device simultaneously from more than one node. Active/active is going to be possible in near (?) future, but you'll still need a cluster-filesystem (OpenGFS?) which wont crash as soon as it is mounted more than once... But to access data from various machines you'll have to use NFS, Samba or something like that - on top of $filesystem (reiserFS, ext3, XFS) which itself resides on top of $blockdevice (IDE, SCSI or with an extra layer in between such as DRBD or LVM). > How's your experience with coda, lustre or afs? Haven't used any of them yet as I didn't need any of their features... best regards, Markus -- Markus Oswald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> \ Unix and Network Administration Graz, AUSTRIA \ High Availability / Cluster Mobile: +43 676 6485415 \ System Consulting Fax: +43 316 428896 \ Web Development
