[Gluster-users] Question about Volume Type when bricks are on SAN
mhanby at uab.edu
Fri Oct 22 20:14:43 UTC 2010
In that sort of configuration, wouldn't having a failover configuration where one server can take over another servers brick negate the need for replication? or, wouldn't replicating negate the need for the corosync/pacemaker config, i.e. server 1 goes down, no problem since replication will sync it up once it comes back online?
From: Patrick Irvine [mailto:pirv at cybersites.ca]
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 2:48 PM
To: Mike Hanby; gluster-users at gluster.org
Subject: RE: [Gluster-users] Question about Volume Type when bricks are on SAN
From: gluster-users-bounces at gluster.org
[mailto:gluster-users-bounces at gluster.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hanby
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 12:23 PM
To: gluster-users at gluster.org
Subject: [Gluster-users] Question about Volume Type when bricks are on SAN
>One final question, is there were a way in Gluster to have a Distributed
>with failover, where if server2 dies, server1 can mount server2's LUN, once
>server2 was back online, server1 could be told to stop hosting the brick
>and return it to server2.
In gluster (bye it's self) ... no, but through corosync/pacemaker yes.
I am currently doing just that but with ISCSI.
In my case:
2 Gluster servers A & B
5 Gluster clients 1 to 5
A and B each attach individual ISCSI targets, mount them and then server
them with gluster
The clients 1 to 5 then mount a replicated gluster share made from servers A
If A should go down, then B will attach to the ISCSI target A was using and
then re-server it for the clients. When A comes backup up, B stops
servering A's resources and disconnects from A's ISCSI target so A can bring
it all back online as normal.
As a note I am using corosync/pacemaker to control starting, stopping and
moving of the required resource.
I hope this helps
More information about the Gluster-users