Carson Gaspar wrote:
> Richard Elling wrote:
>
>> For campus or metro sized systems, many people just use HA clusters.
>> The complexity level is similar and you automatically avoid the NFS
>> file handle problem. There is a lot of expertise in this area as NFS
>> is one of the most popular clus
Richard Elling wrote:
>
> For campus or metro sized systems, many people just use HA clusters.
> The complexity level is similar and you automatically avoid the NFS
> file handle problem. There is a lot of expertise in this area as NFS
> is one of the most popular clustered services.
> http://www.o
Carson Gaspar wrote:
> Let me drag this thread kicking and screaming back to ZFS...
>
> Use case:
>
> - We need an NFS server that can be replicated to another building to
> handle both scheduled powerdowns and unplanned outages. For scheduled
> powerdowns we'd want to fail over a week in advance
>The problem with fully automated systems for remote replication is
>that they are fully automated. This opens you up to a set of failure modes
>that you may want to avoid, such as replication of data that you don't
>want to replicate. This is why most replication is used to support disaster
>rec
Let me drag this thread kicking and screaming back to ZFS...
Use case:
- We need an NFS server that can be replicated to another building to
handle both scheduled powerdowns and unplanned outages. For scheduled
powerdowns we'd want to fail over a week in advance, and fail back some
time later.
Erast Benson wrote:
>> Uh, no, DRBD addresses only replication. Linux-HA (aka Heartbeat)
>> address availability. They can be an integrated solution and are to
>> some degree intended that way, so I have no idea where your opinion
>> is coming from.
>>
>
> Because in my opinion DRBD takes s
On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 19:42 -0400, Maurice Volaski wrote:
> >On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 19:10 -0400, Maurice Volaski wrote:
> >> >On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 18:37 -0400, Maurice Volaski wrote:
> >> >> >On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 15:00 -0400, Maurice Volaski wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 14:36 -04
>On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 19:10 -0400, Maurice Volaski wrote:
>> >On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 18:37 -0400, Maurice Volaski wrote:
>> >> >On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 15:00 -0400, Maurice Volaski wrote:
>> >> >> >On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 14:36 -0400, Maurice Volaski wrote:
>> >> >> >> A disadvantage, however
On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 19:10 -0400, Maurice Volaski wrote:
> >On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 18:37 -0400, Maurice Volaski wrote:
> >> >On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 15:00 -0400, Maurice Volaski wrote:
> >> >> >On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 14:36 -0400, Maurice Volaski wrote:
> >> >> >> A disadvantage, however, is that
>On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 18:37 -0400, Maurice Volaski wrote:
>> >On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 15:00 -0400, Maurice Volaski wrote:
>> >> >On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 14:36 -0400, Maurice Volaski wrote:
>> >> >> A disadvantage, however, is that Sun StorageTek Availability Suite
>> >> >> (AVS), the DRBD equ
On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 18:37 -0400, Maurice Volaski wrote:
> >On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 15:00 -0400, Maurice Volaski wrote:
> >> >On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 14:36 -0400, Maurice Volaski wrote:
> >> >> A disadvantage, however, is that Sun StorageTek Availability Suite
> >> >> (AVS), the DRBD equivalent i
>On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 15:00 -0400, Maurice Volaski wrote:
>> >On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 14:36 -0400, Maurice Volaski wrote:
>> >> A disadvantage, however, is that Sun StorageTek Availability Suite
>> >> (AVS), the DRBD equivalent in OpenSolaris, is much less flexible than
>> >> DRBD. For exampl
On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 15:00 -0400, Maurice Volaski wrote:
> >On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 14:36 -0400, Maurice Volaski wrote:
> >> A disadvantage, however, is that Sun StorageTek Availability Suite
> >> (AVS), the DRBD equivalent in OpenSolaris, is much less flexible than
> >> DRBD. For example, AVS is
>On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 14:36 -0400, Maurice Volaski wrote:
>> A disadvantage, however, is that Sun StorageTek Availability Suite
>> (AVS), the DRBD equivalent in OpenSolaris, is much less flexible than
>> DRBD. For example, AVS is intended to replicate in one direction,
>> from a primary to a s
On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 14:36 -0400, Maurice Volaski wrote:
> A disadvantage, however, is that Sun StorageTek Availability Suite
> (AVS), the DRBD equivalent in OpenSolaris, is much less flexible than
> DRBD. For example, AVS is intended to replicate in one direction,
> from a primary to a seconda
>I'd like to know where the *real* advantages of Nexenta/ZFS (i.e.
>ZFS/StorageTek) over DRBD/Heartbeat are.
The main advantage of OpenSolaris is native ZFS, the many advantages
of which are well described in many places, such as
http://opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/docs/zfs_last.pdf.
A dis
Well, obviously - its Linux vs. OpenSolaris question. Most serious
advantage of OpenSolaris is ZFS and its enterprise level storage stack.
Linux just not there yet..
On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 14:51 +0200, Axel Schmalowsky wrote:
> Hallo list,
>
> hope that so can help me on this topic.
>
> I'd like
Hallo list,
hope that so can help me on this topic.
I'd like to know where the *real* advantages of Nexenta/ZFS (i.e.
ZFS/StorageTek) over DRBD/Heartbeat are.
I'm pretty new to this topic and hence do not have enough experience to judge
their respective advantages/disadvantages reasonably.
Any
18 matches
Mail list logo
