2011/2/27 Gémes Géza g...@kzsdabas.hu:
Hi,
I plan to run my two (1.6.0) openafs servers (both are vl pt vol and dafs
servers) in a failover configuration (the failover supervised by a
redhat-cluster installation). The data is on a SAN which is attached to both
servers.
I plan to define a
2011-02-27 20:15 keltezéssel, Derrick Brashear írta:
2011/2/27 Gémes Géza g...@kzsdabas.hu:
Hi,
I plan to run my two (1.6.0) openafs servers (both are vl pt vol and dafs
servers) in a failover configuration (the failover supervised by a
redhat-cluster installation). The data is on a SAN
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Harald Barthh...@kth.se wrote:
In the case of server1 would went down server2:
1. would mount vicepa ...
2. would take over address 10.0.0.1
3. finally would restart the vlserver volserver and fs processes.
You have missed what to do with the outstanding
Hi Tom,
I recall mentioning in Ohio, XCB doesn't have a private view of client callback
state. I'm unsure it's a good tradeoff to serialize XCB messages for reliable
delivery. You would be changing the goal from consistency is preserved to
clients don't need to update their cache on
The net result is 2-node active/passive failover
clusters can be equivalent to standalone fileservers in terms of cache
coherence (assuming proper Net{Info,Restrict} and rxbind
configuration).
I'm sorry, I just see the situation with X clients that have cached
data with registered callbacks.
Hi,
In principle my question is about the feasibility of the following setup:
There is a SAN (Coraid), all the partitions vicepa, vicepb, ... are in
fact lvm volumes on top of it.
Two boxes are connected to it, the boxes run a xenified debian distro.
On each of them there is one xen guest being
In the case of server1 would went down server2:
1. would mount vicepa ...
2. would take over address 10.0.0.1
3. finally would restart the vlserver volserver and fs processes.
You have missed what to do with the outstanding callbacks that server1
is holding (in memory). When server1 does
Chris Huebsch wrote:
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006, Stefan Heimers wrote:
But if I don't do a graceful shutdown, but rather turn off the power on
one machine, the afs server won't work on the other. Filesystems are
mounted, processes are started, but the clients cannot access afs
directories.
Are
I am experiencing a problem with our failover setup. We have two Openafs
servers which share external storage. I can mount /vicep*
and /var/lib/openafs on one machine and start the server processes. Works
fine. Both machines have a common IP address which is activated on the main
machine and
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006, Stefan Heimers wrote:
But if I don't do a graceful shutdown, but rather turn off the power on one
machine, the afs server won't work on the other. Filesystems are mounted,
processes are started, but the clients cannot access afs directories.
Are you sure, that your
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 23:35:42 +0100
Horst Birthelmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's why the replication has to be triggered by the administrator.
Can this not be automated via cron for all volumes every 5min for
example?
--
Regards, Ed http://www.usenix.org.uk - http://irc.is-cool.net
On Dec 31, 2005, at 4:12 PM, ed wrote:
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 23:35:42 +0100
Horst Birthelmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's why the replication has to be triggered by the administrator.
Can this not be automated via cron for all volumes every 5min for
example?
It can, of course, but that's
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 16:43:38 +0100
Horst Birthelmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 31, 2005, at 4:12 PM, ed wrote:
Can this not be automated via cron for all volumes every 5min for
example?
It can, of course, but that's still no failover, since you have just
one RW copy.
If that
On Dec 31, 2005, at 4:53 PM, ed wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 16:43:38 +0100
Horst Birthelmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 31, 2005, at 4:12 PM, ed wrote:
Can this not be automated via cron for all volumes every 5min for
example?
It can, of course, but that's still no failover, since you
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 17:19:35 +0100
Horst Birthelmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Replication has nothing to do with AFS backups and volume database
backup is an entirely separate topic.
I'm not sure where exactly the confusion is... ;-)
Those are three completely different things.
If you can
On Saturday, December 31, 2005 12:36:40 AM -0600 Troy Benjegerdes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The advantage of AFS over a single system is you can have as many
incoming MTA machines, and imap servers as you want.
Yes, you can. But as the volume gets large, especially for any given
mailbox,
On Sat, Dec 31, 2005 at 08:03:40PM -0500, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Saturday, December 31, 2005 12:36:40 AM -0600 Troy Benjegerdes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The advantage of AFS over a single system is you can have as many
incoming MTA machines, and imap servers as you want.
Yes,
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
I very much recommend against trying to store mail in AFS. There is
no gain to be had in reliability, scalability, or performance, and
there are any number of potential problems. If what you're trying to
accomplish is to get those features in a distributed mail
On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 11:12:53AM -0500, Derek Atkins wrote:
Pierre Ancelot [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ok, then, what i am looking for is a distributed filesystem (free of
charge and license (GNU or so)) replication over all nodes since i am
preparing a virtual mail server using
Stephan Wiesand wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, Derek Atkins wrote:
You don't want AFS for an imap or maildir backend. You should just
Since it's void of any locks, what would be wrong with maildir in AFS?
There's a bunch of things wrong with stock maildir; I've done a lot of
work with it.
AFS does not provide a method for failover, in the strictest meaning of
the word. A replicated volume residing on a different file server than
the original volume, would be the closest to what I think you mean.
Although replicating every volume in a cell is not recommended. So I
doubt that
Ok, then, what i am looking for is a distributed filesystem (free of
charge and license (GNU or so)) replication over all nodes since i am
preparing a virtual mail server using keepalived and maildir system. The
thing is users use imap and imaps in a load balanced environnement so
every node
Pierre Ancelot [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ok, then, what i am looking for is a distributed filesystem (free of
charge and license (GNU or so)) replication over all nodes since i am
preparing a virtual mail server using keepalived and maildir system. The
thing is users use imap and imaps in a
Well, thanks for the link to drdb, it's certainly what i'll use, this or
lustre. About the shared raid drive, if the server that runs it dies, i'
out anyways, so this is not failover.
Thanks.
Pierre.
PS: Can you please stop to send to me cc to the mailing list ? it's
really annoying. Thanks.
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, Derek Atkins wrote:
You don't want AFS for an imap or maildir backend. You should just
Since it's void of any locks, what would be wrong with maildir in AFS?
use a RAID system, or perhaps DRBD (www.drbd.org) if you really want
network redundancy. But if it were me I'd
Stephan Wiesand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, Derek Atkins wrote:
You don't want AFS for an imap or maildir backend. You should just
Since it's void of any locks, what would be wrong with maildir in AFS?
AFS is optimized for read (or pessimized for write, depending on which
Hi everyone :)
I wanted to know how afs is reacting in the case of a failover
cluster...
i use keepalived on linux and i wish to have a failover distributed
filesystem, like what happens if a replica dies or if the first server
dies ? ... And when it will get back up, what should i know about
On Dec 27, 2005, at 8:15 PM, Pierre Ancelot wrote:
Hi everyone :)
I wanted to know how afs is reacting in the case of a failover
cluster...
i use keepalived on linux and i wish to have a failover distributed
filesystem, like what happens if a replica dies or if the first server
dies ? ... And
28 matches
Mail list logo
