[ClusterLabs] [Slightly OT] OCFS2 over LVM

[Kai Dupke]

On 08/24/2015 06:20 PM, Digimer wrote:
> Cluster locking comes at a performance cost. All locks need to be
> coordinated between the nodes, and that will always be slower that local
> locking only. They are also far less commonly used than options like nfs.

right.

> Using a pair of nodes with a traditional file system exported by NFS and
> made accessible by a floating (virtual) IP address gives you redundancy
> without incurring the complexity and performance overhead of cluster
> locking.

Then you have to copy all data on the network, which limits data throughput.


> Also, you won't need clvmd either. The trade-off through is
> that if/when the primary fails, the nfs daemon will appear to restart to
> the users and that may require a reconnection (not sure, I use nfs
> sparingly).

AFAIK NFS failover includes an NFS timeout, which can be tuned but might
give you an extra time till the failover will be finished by the client
perspective.

> Generally speaking, I recommend always avoiding cluster FSes unless
> they're really required.

Full ACK.

greetings
Kai Dupke
Senior Product Manager
Server Product Line
-- 
Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor liberty to purchase power.
Phone:  +49-(0)5102-9310828     Mail: kdupke at suse.com
Mobile: +49-(0)173-5876766      WWW:  www.suse.com

SUSE Linux GmbH - Maxfeldstr. 5 - 90409 Nuernberg (Germany)
GF:Felix Imendörffer,Jane Smithard,Graham Norton,HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)