On Jul 25, 6:20 pm, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 07/25/08 16:32, Bob wrote: > > > > > Here's what I want: > > I have a vmware server running on etch, hosting 4 VM's. > > I want these 4 VM's to be hosted in such a way, that should anything > > fail on 1 VM host, there is another providing seamless service. I want > > to do this with the 2 pc's I already have, each with 2 NIC's, and no > > other hardware. > > > My basic question - what's the best solution to accomplish this? > > > Here's what I've looked at: > > drbd/HA (heartbeat) - allows you to raid1 a disk partition between 2 > > pc's over ethernet > > issues: in the default primary/secondary failover config, if > > primary fails, there is some period of time (even if only seconds), > > required for the secondary to become primary - I can only assume this > > would mean rebooting all the VM's. > > however - you can run drbd in a primary/primary config - this > > sounds like what I want. But it sounds like I need a clustering files > > system to do this like GFS. After countless hours researching this, > > I'm still not sure how to do it - do I need GFS? OCFS? NBD? > > > Now drbd isn't really a cluster, it's just raid1-ing 2 pc's - this > > could be all I need. > > But - would a REAL cluster be a better solution? I believe a cluster > > could provide load balancing, or at least optimized use of all > > available hard disk heads. Although, if drbd needs GFS, then in fact, > > doesn't this become a real cluster? > > > What would a clustering solution look like? > > which is the best filesystem to use - GFS/OCFS ? > > would drbd still be needed if GFS is used? > > > Any ideas, experiences, help - greatly appreciated! > > A *real* cluster would entail running OpenVMS (since clustering is > built deep into the OS) on either HP Integrity servers or used > AlphaServers, and either buying little SAN boxes or using HBVS > (Host-Based Volume Shadowing, which is similar to llvm, but has been > in enterprise use for 25 years) on the disks. > > With this, the OS will allow you to use both nodes concurrently on > the same data files, and in case of a node crash, the other node > will clean things up so that you don't have any corrupted data. > > Next best would be Tru64 (a.k.a. OSF/1) Unix on AlphaServers, > because much of the clustering technology from VMS was ported to Tru64. > > - -- > Ron Johnson, Jr. > Jefferson LA USA >
Hi Ron; I appreciate your comments. I knew very little about "true" clustering solutions - that's all good to know... However, I'm curious if you have an opinion of what the best linux- based solution might be ? TIA - Bob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
