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

Re: [Linux-cluster] Clustering RHEL 2.1 without Shared Storage?

Kit Gerrits wrote:
Hey All,

I'm very new here, so this question may have passed by a few times already.
I simply couldn't find a way to make it work, so now I'm asking the

Is there a way to run a 2-node RHEL 2.1 Cluster without the use of a Shared
Storage box?
The Quorum needs to be on any generic shared Block Device, but I'm not sure
a NFS mount qualifies.

hi Kit

No, it does not. RHEL 2.1. clustering uses Raw devices/partitions for its quorum device.


I can, if need be, mount a NFS share from either a Linux host or a NAS.

Why 2.1?
Because the application has only been certified for 2.1 and I'm too afraid
of putting it on a machine with a 2.6 kernel.

RHEL 3 and 4 contain the compat libraries for applications certified against RHEL 2.1 . If your application does not interface with the OS at a kernel level (or is coupled with custom hardware which only has 2.4 kernel support), you may just "get lucky".

Unfortunately, RHEL 3 also still requires a shared device for quorum. Only in RHEL 4 does it become optional (although, in my experience, a quorum device does wonders for the stability of a 2-node cluster)

But, for the love of [insert deity here], WHY???
Because we're already working on replacing the entire system, but this will
take about a year and the current servers might die any minute now.

But if it's that important, why did you only just start the replacement?
a/ I just got hired for the job
b/ It's for a Government Organization, they're not that quick.

What's the current hardware?
The main system is on HP/UX on HP9000/K360 (with a HASS and an AUtoRAID)
There is a subsystem that has been tried and tested on RHEL2.1 on CPQ
DL380-G3 (With a MSW500)
I have 2 CPQ DL320 machines I can use for the back-up plan. (with no Storage

Can anyone please help me out here?


Kit Gerrits

talk about being between a rock and a hard place. What you want, cannot be done on RHEL 2.1 without shared (block) storage. Give the customer the options and have them decide:

a) RHEL 2.1, without clustering (I would recommend this) but some kind of hot/cold standby mechanism (scripts) to periodically sync data to the standby host. If the primary host goes down fatally, have a process to manually switch over (this could imply starting the application, bringing up a virtual IP, etc) b) RHEL 4 with clustering - breaks application certification, even though it might still work. c) RHEL 2.1 with clustering (which requires the additional expense of a shared storage (fibre, not SCSI) storage array.

fn:Riaan van Niekerk
n:van Niekerk;Riaan
org:Obsidian Systems;Obsidian Red Hat Consulting
email;internet:riaan obsidian co za
title:Systems Architect
tel;work:+27 11 792 6500
tel;fax:+27 11 792 6522
tel;cell:+27 82 921 8768

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