[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [Linux-cluster] fence device
- From: "Q.L" <oldmoonster gmail com>
- To: Jonathan E Brassow <jbrassow redhat com>
- Cc: "JACOB_LIBERMAN dell com" <JACOB_LIBERMAN dell com>, linux clustering <linux-cluster redhat com>
- Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster] fence device
- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:00:53 +0800
Jonathan,
I know GNBD is a choice, but I will not consider it in my study environment.
Thank for you very much.
Michael
On 7/29/05, Jonathan E Brassow <jbrassow redhat com> wrote:
>
> On Jul 28, 2005, at 9:18 PM, Q.L wrote:
>
> > So, is there any 8 ports brocade switch that support fencing agent?
>
> Pretty much all brocade switches are supported by the (included)
> fence_brocade agent.
>
> > can Qlogic switch work?
>
> I think so. We have a fence_sanbox2 agent... not sure about all the
> models it supports - perhaps all, perhaps one. Help, anyone?
>
> > If I use a switch without fencing agent, can I
> > use a manual fencing way to get system work?
>
> Yes, but it will require manual intervention every time you have (or
> test) a failure.
>
> > In fact, what I want to
> > study is the Symmetric lock principle, especially at the time
> > concurrent write/read to the storage pool from both nodes, without
> > considering one point failure.
>
> If you had a third machine, you could use GNBD. The GNBD server would
> be a SPOF, but if it's just for testing, it would be fine. GNBD would
> turn your third box into a iSCSI-like device which has built in I/O
> fencing support.
>
> brassow
>
>
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]