Please keep replies on list.
On 6/26/2013 10:44 PM, Igor Cicimov wrote:
> On 27/06/2013 11:36 AM, "Stan Hoeppner" wrote:
>>
>> On 6/26/2013 5:27 PM, Igor Cicimov wrote:
>>> Gfs2 it self can be mounted as nfs share on the client side you dont
> even
>>> need to run nfs underneath.
>>
>> Would you
Gfs2 it self can be mounted as nfs share on the client side you dont even
need to run nfs underneath.
??
I have a collegue who told the same thing, but showed to him that's not true
If you have have a link for this, i can appreciate
Thanks
Emmanuel
2013/6/27 Igor Cicimov
> Gfs2 it self
On 6/26/2013 5:27 PM, Igor Cicimov wrote:
> Gfs2 it self can be mounted as nfs share on the client side you dont even
> need to run nfs underneath.
Would you mind clarifying exactly what you mean by this?
--
Stan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subjec
Gfs2 it self can be mounted as nfs share on the client side you dont even
need to run nfs underneath.
On 27/06/2013 7:18 AM, "Joel Wirāmu Pauling" wrote:
> I successfully run nfsv4 and drbd in clustered mode.
>
> The main thing to do wrt config files for nfs is pin down port numbers
> to specific
I successfully run nfsv4 and drbd in clustered mode.
The main thing to do wrt config files for nfs is pin down port numbers
to specific (rather than dynamic ones) at startup for the rpc suite.
And also switch to UDP rather than transport (solves session issues
during failover) - your clients all n
On 6/26/2013 2:54 PM, David Parker wrote:
> 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.
It may be worth clarification to note GlusterFS is not a cluster
filesystem
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Adrian Fita 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
On 06/26/2013 09:11 PM, David Parker wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm wondering if there is a way to set up a highly-available NFS share
> using two servers (Debian Wheezy), where the shared volume can failover
> if the primary server goes down. My idea was to use two NFS servers and
> keep the exported d
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:11:42PM -0400, David Parker wrote:
> I'm wondering if there is a way to set up a highly-available NFS share
> using two servers (Debian Wheezy), where the shared volume can failover if
> the primary server goes down. My idea was to use two NFS servers and keep
> the expo
Hello,
I'm wondering if there is a way to set up a highly-available NFS share
using two servers (Debian Wheezy), where the shared volume can failover if
the primary server goes down. My idea was to use two NFS servers and keep
the exported directories in sync using DRDB. On the client, mount the
I suggest you start a new mail rather than replying to an old, unrelated
one when asking a question. Your message is part of the older thread,
and will be overlooked by people not interested in the older thread who
use threaded clients (mutt, thunderbird, gmail, etc.)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 05:04:35PM -0700, liz wrote:
> Quick question, in Solaris I have the option of specifying multiple
> NFS servers for failover purposes? Does debian have support for this.
> I edited the /etc/fstab and added multiple hostnames but I get an
> error saying that they are not sup
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Greetings,
Quick question, in Solaris I have the option of specifying multiple
NFS servers for failover purposes? Does debian have support for this.
I edited the /etc/fstab and added multiple hostnames but I get an
error saying that they are not support
13 matches
Mail list logo
