On Jul 26, 1:50 am, Alex Samad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 06:09:24PM -0500, Ron Johnson 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. > > :) Tree hugger :) > > > > > 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. > > Best to get some sort of shared storage, like a disk shelf that allow > multiple connections - ie to server to connect at the same time (this > can be done with scsi but usually with FC ), I believe esx has its on > file system so just load it up, present the disk space to the 2 server > and your off. > >
Alex - TX for your reply... At the moment, I really don't want to invest in iscsi/FC tech... and my solution doesn't really need the 99.999% uptime these solutions might provide. I'd be happy with 99.0% ;-) I do find your mention of ESX interesting though, as I have considered upgrading my (free) vmware server to ESX. It does have some really nice features. However, at the present point in time, that would add a significant cost I'm not able to invest (I would need a couple add-ons in addition to ESX as well). So I'm really looking for the best open, linux based solution. The more & more I look into this, the more it seems to me like drbd v8 running in primary/primary config, over GFS might be the best way to go... I'm just curious if anyone disagrees, and if so, what their linux based alternative might look like... TIA - Bob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
