Ernest, If you've read other threads, I think you'll gather that OCFS2 still has a lot of gotchas and many things can cause nodes to fence and reboot. I'm most familiar with using Netapp NFS clusters, not Linux hosts, for resilient NFS storage. As it stands today and with my personal experience, I'd definitely trust a Netapp cluster over an OCFS2 cluster.
Just my 2 cents. /Brian/ On Mon, 2006-12-04 at 14:51 -0500, Cline, Ernest wrote: > Well, then the NFS server would be a single point of failure. I have > multipathing on the external storage, so I could technically lose, > either a disk, a scsi cable, a controller card, or an entire server, and > everything keeps on trucking. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Long [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 2:46 PM > To: HAWKER, Dan > Cc: Cline, Ernest; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Ocfs2-users] OCFS 1.2.4 and extended attributes > > If the servers don't need to access the storage as a block device, why > not just NAS / NFS? That reduces the complexity even further. :) > > /Brian/ > -- Brian Long | | IT Infrastructure . | | | . | | | . Data Center Systems ' ' Cisco Enterprise Linux C I S C O _______________________________________________ Ocfs2-users mailing list [email protected] http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-users
