[ClusterLabs] design question to DRBD

[Dimitri Maziuk]

On 06/22/2016 04:29 PM, Klaus Wenninger wrote:
> On 06/22/2016 11:17 PM, Lentes, Bernd wrote:

>> I'm thinking about active/active. But i think active/passive with a
>> non-cluster fs is less complicated.
> But you will need something to control DRBD - especially in the
> active/passive-case.
> And the services/IPs would probably have to be pulled to the active side.

It looks like with modern linux kernels you don't have to
re-bind()/listen() anymore when an IP address is added. So you can start
services bound to '*' from init and have pacemaker only manage the
shared ip address.

But yes, with active/passive DRBD you need something to control DRBD and
mount DRBD FS and then start services that depend on DRBD FS.

Active-active should let you have your filesystem mounted on both nodes
at once and have things running from init. I never tried it myself so I
don't know which of them would be "less complicated".

-- 
Dimitri Maziuk
Programmer/sysadmin
BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20160622/5ae1af45/attachment-0003.sig>