[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
RE: [Linux-cluster] Simplest 4 node GFS 6.1 cluster
- From: <JACOB_LIBERMAN Dell com>
- To: <linux-cluster redhat com>
- Subject: RE: [Linux-cluster] Simplest 4 node GFS 6.1 cluster
- Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 13:54:05 -0500
Troy,
What is the model/vendor of the switch? What are the models/vendors of
the servers? I ran into a similar problem in our lab (no network power
switches) and there are a few ways to get around that problem.
Thanks, jacob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-cluster-bounces redhat com
> [mailto:linux-cluster-bounces redhat com] On Behalf Of Troy Dawson
> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 8:43 AM
> To: linux clustering
> Subject: [Linux-cluster] Simplest 4 node GFS 6.1 cluster
>
> Hello,
> I've really been trying to figure this out from the
> documentation, and if it's in there, please point me at it.
>
> Here is what I want to do. I have 4 machines, all connected
> to the same SAN disk. 1 machine will be the only machine
> that can read and write to the disk. The other 3 will be
> read only. The read only machines will be the only ones that
> have outside services running, such as ftp, nfs, rsync.
>
> I don't have a reliable 5th machine. So I don't have a way
> to do an external lock manager.
>
> I don't want any failover, but I also don't want a single
> point of failure. Basically if one of the read only machines
> goes dead, then it's dead, nothing takes it's place, but the
> other machines can go right on working. If the read, write
> machine goes dead, then it's dead, but the read only machines
> can go right on doing what they normally do. And if two or
> three machines die, I still want the one to still be able to
> at least read the data.
>
> This idea of fencing is what's throwing me off. If I'm
> reading things right, I can't do group GFS without them being
> in a cluster, and they can't be in a cluster without doing
> fencing. But the fencing seems to just allow the various
> machines to take over for one another.
>
> I also don't have access to the SAN switch, other than my
> machines plug into it. It's essentially a black box. These
> machines also don't have any way to remotely turn power on an off.
>
> Is GFS what I really want? I've tried just standard ext3,
> but I was getting a caching problem with my read only
> machines. Do I just want to try and fix my caching problem?
>
> Troy Dawson
> --
> __________________________________________________
> Troy Dawson dawson fnal gov (630)840-6468 Fermilab
> ComputingDivision/CSS CSI Group
> __________________________________________________
>
> --
> Linux-cluster mailing list
> Linux-cluster redhat com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
>
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]