[ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: principal questions to a two-node cluster
Ulrich.Windl at rz.uni-regensburg.de
Tue Apr 21 02:23:30 EDT 2015
>>> Michael Schwartzkopff <ms at sys4.de> schrieb am 20.04.2015 um 19:21 in
<3211313.Fb7Czu5kSR at nb003>:
> Am Montag, 20. April 2015, 19:12:01 schrieb Lentes, Bernd:
>> Michael wrote:
>> > Am Montag, 20. April 2015, 15:23:28 schrieb Lentes, Bernd:
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > we'd like to create a two-node cluster for our services (web,
>> > > database, virtual machines). We will have two servers and a shared
>> > fiberchannel SAN.
>> > > What would you do e.g. with the content of the webpages we offer ?
>> > Put
>> > > them on the SAN so we don't need to synchronize them between the
>> > two nodes ?
>> > Yes. That seems to be a good idea.
>> > > Also the database and the vm's on the SAN ? Which fs would you
>> > > recommend for the SAN volumes ? OCFS2 ? Can I mount the same
>> > volume on
>> > > each node contemporarily ? Or do I have to use the ocfs2 as a resource
>> > > managed by pacemaker, so that the volume is only mounted if it is
>> > necessary ?
>> > In your setup I'd avoid concurrent mounts of the columes on both
>> > servers. If you have concurrent mounts, you will have to use a cluster
>> > file
>> > system (OCFS2, GFS, ...). These file systems provide locking. But if
>> > pacemaker takes care, that the volumes are only mounted on one
>> > machine, you can go with a plain file system (ext4, efx).
>> I thought ocfs2 would give me a further level of security. If, somehow,
>> although pacemaker takes care, two hosts try to mount concurrently, with
>> ocfs2 nothing would happen. Right ? Is there any reason not to use ocfs2 ?
>> E.g. performance, stability ?
> Yes. Some people wear suspenders and a belt ;-)
> But seriously, OCFSs needs DLM. I'd try to avoid complex setups if possible.
> Make it as simple as possible. Complex setup tend to create the most weired
>> > if you need LVM, you anyway need LVM2 with Distributed Locking
>> > (DLM).
you mean cLVM, not LVM2?
>> Yes. I will not use LVM. But if I choose ocfs2, I also need DLM. Right ?
>> Or is there an advantage of choosing LVM ? Snapshots ? OCFS2 also seems to
>> be able to take snapshots.
> No LVM2 cannot take snapshots. If you use LVM in clusters you need LVM2
> because it takes care for a consistent numbering of LVMs on all servers.
> otherwise You could run your LVMs only on the right or the left server. Not
> even a part here and a part there.
>> > Please also consider NFSv4 if your SAN box offers it. NFS has file
>> > included.
>> The SAN does not offer NFS.
> Go, buy another SAN.
I think you mix SAN and NAS.
>> > Please do not hesitate to mail to me or to the list, if there are any
>> > other
>> > problems.
>> > For the databases, you also could consider using a Master/Slave setup.
>> > So the data replication does happen on application level and no shared
>> > filesystems are needed. pacemaker handles the state (Master / Slave) of
>> > the database application. Otherwise the database would need share
>> > storage.
>> > Please note that you need fencing in ANY case if you have shared
>> > storage.
>> Yes. I have HP ProLiant servers with ILO cards, and also a configureable
>> (via LAN) power distributor from APC.
> APCs have an advantage over ILO. ILO will not answer if the power is gone.
> the cluster will not continue. That missing feedback is much more unlikely
> from with an APC.
Unless you buy the cheapest servers, you'll have redundant power. Here we have
two rows of power supply, each with ist own UPS.
>> Bist Du der Autor von "Clusterbau: Hochverfügbarkeit mit Linux" ? Tolles
> Ja. Danke. Eine positive Kritik bei Amazon würde mich auch freuen ;-)
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
> Michael Schwartzkopff
> [*] sys4 AG
> http://sys4.de, +49 (89) 30 90 46 64, +49 (162) 165 0044
> Franziskanerstraße 15, 81669 München
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: München, Amtsgericht München: HRB 199263
> Vorstand: Patrick Ben Koetter, Marc Schiffbauer
> Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Florian Kirstein
More information about the Users