Re: Hardware balanced NFS or not?

[Brian Long <brilong cisco com>]

Rafael,

You cannot hardware balance NFS read/write accesses.  You _can_ balance
NFS read-only accesses if the underlying filesystems are exact
duplicates of each other.  I've never done this with Linux NFS servers,
but I have done it with Network Appliance filers.  By altering the disk
labels on two Netapp volumes to be identical, the NFS filehandles were
identical.  This allowed us to failover an IP between the two filers
(non-clustered) and the clients did not get stale NFS filehandles.

/Brian/

On Mon, 2004-07-12 at 17:15, Rafael Ferreira wrote:
> Hey everyone,
> 
> I'm about to provide NFS to a bunch of servers and I wanted to know
> what do you guys think would yell the most reliability, using redhat
> clustering on a active/active type of environment or to use a layer 4
> "load balancer"  to spread the load across the NFS servers (about 4 of
> them). I'm only familiar with the software clustering and I'm not even
> sure that hardware clustering would work well (in active/active) due
> to inodes.. but I would like to hear your experiences, what would give
> the best reliability and capacity? 
> 
> - raf
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> --
> Taroon-list mailing list
> Taroon-list redhat com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/taroon-list
-- 
       Brian Long                      |         |           |
       Americas IT Hosting Sys Admin   |       .|||.       .|||.
       Cisco Linux Developer           |   ..:|||||||:...:|||||||:..
       Phone: (919) 392-7363           |   C i s c o   S y s t e m s