[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Linux-cluster] Simplest 4 node GFS 6.1 cluster




Sorry for the delay, I was on vacation, then catching up from being on vacation.


Basically, our Fiber Channel switch is hands off to me. Not that I don't have access to the password, but there are several much more important things connected to that switch. If I were to mess them up, or cause them to go down for a bit ... well that wouldn't be good.

It looks like I'm going to be going with the power switch option. The rack my macines are in doesn't currently have controllable power, put it's in the works, so I guess I'll just be patient.

Troy

JACOB_LIBERMAN Dell com wrote:
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 __________________________________________________


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]