True. Anyways. Thanks for your help. Regards, Chaitanya
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Chrissie Caulfield <ccaul...@redhat.com>wrote: > Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote: > > Thanks for your reply Chrissie. > > > > But is this, i.e. deployment of clusters with same name, a valid > > scenario? How often (as in say 1 in a 100) may I see such deployments, > > if at all? > > > > Sorry, I really have no idea how many times you might see such > deployments. How would I work it out?! Cluster names are chosen by the > administrators ... those people are not easily predictable ;-) > > Chrissie > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Chrissie Caulfield <ccaul...@redhat.com > > <mailto:ccaul...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > > > Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > > > What happens if in the same network, we try to create two clusters > > with > > > the same name? > > > > > > Does it cause any problem? > > > > YES LOTS! > > > > At best the two clusters will merge into one, at worst you will get > node > > evictions because of clashes between node IDs > > > > Actually you *can* do this if you change the cluster_id/multicast > > address or port number in cluster.conf. But need to be careful and it > is > > not recommended. > > > > The main reason I say not to do this is that GFS volumes have the > > cluster name embedded in the super block. If you have two clusters > with > > the same cluster name on the same SAN then it's going to be very easy > to > > totally corrupt the GFS filesystem by mounting it on two different > > clusters. > > > > > > Chrissie > > > > -- > Linux-cluster mailing list > Linux-cluster@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster >
-- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster