> We use DRBD/Heartbeat/NFS for exactly this purpose. Make sure you mount >your > > NFS filesystems with the udp option and failover from one machine to the > other is transparent.
If one is going to look at DRBD, then I would strongly consider GFS2 instead, for NFS failover, especially for supportability. And if you're looking there, then just using GFS2 itself is now a re-consideration (without NFS). > GFS is comparable to ext3 performance-wise, a bit slower in some types > of operation. GFS2 is a bit better than ext3 GFS2 aggregate data transfer can exceed Ext3 performance, if deployed correctly and depending on the SAN topology, leveraging it's multiple nodes. If GFS2 gets bogged down in meta-data operations and RHCS multicast traffic over the Ethernet, that's where most have issues. I've run into a few cases where binaries are written quite improper, and lock files in their respective trees, causing wholly unnecessary overhead between nodes. That's why I'm a fan of read-only NFS for sharing binaries, avoiding the issues of locking. It's compounded by the fact when people use the same GFS2 file system for all sorts of other operations (data, temporary, etc...) and don't consider their actual usage of the file systems. -- Bryan P.S. There's no law that one has to use GFS2 or NFS, but not both, on a system. I've seen an allergy to doing such for a reason I still don't understand. Same deal with Ext3, Ext4 and/or XFS on the same system, one can have multiple file systems in use. _______________________________________________ rhelv5-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
