On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Adrian Fita <adrian.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06/26/2013 09:11 PM, David Parker wrote: > > > > What I'm looking for is a way to have the client be aware of both > > servers, and gracefully failover between them. I thought about using > > Pacemaker and Corosync to provide a virtual IP which floats between the > > servers, but would that work with NFS? Let's say I have an established > > NFS mount and server1 fails, and the virtual IP fails over to server2. > > Wouldn't there be a bunch of NFS socket and state information which > > server2 is unaware of, therefore rendering the connection useless on the > > client? Also, data integrity is essential in this scenario, so what > > about active writes to the NFS share which are happening at the time the > > server-side failover takes place? > > > > I have also studied NFS fail-over with Pacemaker/Corosync/DRBD and it > could work with NFSv3; NFSv4 uses TCP which makes things very hard. But > even with NFSv3 I stumbled over strange situations, the likes of which I > don't really remember, but the bottom line I have decided that NFS NFS > fail-over is too fiddly and hard to control reliably. Now I'm studying > using Gluster for replicating data between nodes and mounting the > gluster volumes on the clients via glusterfs - this seems like a much > better, simpler and more robust approach. I suggest you take a look at > Gluster, it's an exceptionally good technology. > > Thank you for the information and suggestions. Dan, thanks for the link, it exactly describes what I'm trying to do. As you both pointed out, it would be easier and safer to use a clustered filesystem instead of NFS for this project. I'll check out GlusterFS, it looks like a great option. Thanks! -- Dave Parker Systems Administrator Utica College Integrated Information Technology Services (315) 792-3229 Registered Linux User #408177
