xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: re[2]: XFS and net devices, any pros or cons ?

To: Greg Freemyer <freemyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: re[2]: XFS and net devices, any pros or cons ?
From: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: 14 Aug 2002 12:15:49 -0500
Cc: Blizbor <tb670725@xxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20020814171123.FZMF1197.imf05bis.bellsouth.net@TAZ2>
References: <20020814171123.FZMF1197.imf05bis.bellsouth.net@TAZ2>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 12:08, Greg Freemyer wrote:
>  >>  The normal way we setup something like this is to use a shared scsi
>  >>  or fiberchannel disk setup, that way you no longer have a singe
>  >>  point of failure. If you are putting the disks into one of the
>  >>  two computers then if that system goes down you are dead in the
>  >>  water. The other aspect of the above setup is using something
>  >>  like failsafe, the two nodes monitor each other, and can (if
>  >>  setup correctly) shoot the other node down and take over the
>  >>  filesystem if it detects problems. failsafe itself is opensource,
>  >>  not sure if the components of it which fail over the filesystem
>  >>  to the other node are. Of course all this assumes using the fs
>  >>  via NFS - the second node takes over the ip address of the failed
>  >>  node.
> 
>  >>  A quick look at drbd on the net seems to show that it is designed
>  >>  for these sorts of setups, and it has links to all the high
>  >>  availability stuff for linux.
> 
>  >>  That aside, there should be no problem doing this, provided you
>  >>  make sure the unmount from one system is complete before attempting
>  >>  to mount on the other system. Mounting a filesystem which is 
>  >>  already mounted elsewhere is not a good thing, the second system
>  >>  will think the fs needs recovery running on it.
> 
>  >>  Steve
> 
> I don't think drbd is designed for use in a shared SCSI environment.

I did not intend to imply it was, just presenting a different way
to build a resilient configuration.

> 
> It is more of a RAID 1 driver where the 2 halves of the mirror are on the 2 
> different servers using internal disks.  
> 
> I believe it has support for ordered writes, but I for one would not simply 
> assume XFS and drbd are compatible.
> 

Ah, I should have read more.... if the fs is mirrored between the two
hosts then there is a chance it will work OK. However, the interesting
part of XFS is write ordering - there are certain writes which we need
to know have made it down to disk and will survive a crash. In this
sort of setup I really do not know where the data will be once drbd
says it is written. Probably still in cache on the remote box for a
start. There may well be circumstances where loss of both machines
will cause filesystem corruption.

you are right, testing such a setup before going live with it is
important, please do not take my comments as meaning it will definitely
work.

Steve


> Greg Freemyer
> Internet Engineer
> Deployment and Integration Specialist
> Compaq ASE - Tru64 v4, v5
> Compaq Master ASE - SAN Architect
> The Norcross Group
> www.NorcrossGroup.com
-- 

Steve Lord                                      voice: +1-651-683-3511
Principal Engineer, Filesystem Software         email: lord@xxxxxxx


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>