2009/6/25 Gordan Bobic <gor...@bobich.net> > On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:38:04 +0200, ESGLinux <esggru...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I can mount this disk with NFS (also with CIFS but I´m not using this > > protocol) > > > > My idea was to mount the disk with NFS on the 2 nodes of a red hat > cluster, > > but I don´t know if it is a good idea. (perhaps no :-( ) > > There's no reason why you couldn't or shouldn't do this. If all you want is > some shared storage and don't care about the single point of failure, then > this is exactly what the device was intended for. :)
ok, I´m always afraid with data corruption and thougth I will have problems with this, but If you think that there is not problem I´ll folow your advice ( at my own risk of course, ;-) > > > > The cluster are going to serve a HA httpd service (I know, with this disk > I > > have a SPOF, but that is all I have, no money for more .-(( ) > > > > any suggestion with this scenario? > > It should "just work" as you described. NFS mount it on both nodes and > point Apache at it as per usual. It'll probably work faster than a > clustered file system solution. For redundancy, however, if you have enough > disk space on the web nodes, you could set up mirrored storage using DRBD > and run GFS on top of that. You'd end up with full redundancy and no need > for the NAS (assuming, as I said, that nodes have enough space). Note that > fencing would be absolutely mandatory if you use GFS or else either node > failing would halt the cluster to prevent data corruption. > I was allways looking for an oportunity to test DRBD. I think now is the moment. My reference web about DRBD is http://www.drbd.org/, any advice, read, before I begin to test it? ESG > > Gordan > > -- > 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
