[Linux-cluster] Multiple Logical Volumes

isplist at logicore.net isplist at logicore.net
Thu Oct 26 19:54:40 UTC 2006


Yes, agreed.

In my case, I already have fibre channel storage set up now. Each node can see 
the storage as it's own so I can avoid things such as NFS for example. 

I like the idea of network boots for two reasons. 

One is that I have a drive in each blade which costs power and yet, I still 
have to add drives into the central storage. Seems that I could save money and 
power by not having any drives in each blade/server. I'd prefer that.

Second is that right now, when I need a new node, I have to install a new 
server, configure the server rather heavily etc, and in the end, that server 
and my time is not being used very effectively.. it seems.

Most of the things I want to run seem to allow for central storage. I am 
running email, web and sql services for the most part, other things might be 
on their own or their own clusters. Web servers can share data, mail servers 
and from what I've seen, sql servers can too. 

So, when I need more resources, it would be a simple matter of configuring the 
net boot options and firing up another blade and I'm done.

Of course there are other aspects but I'm talking about the basics. Am I 
missing something?

Mike


On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:40:11 -0400, Patton, Matthew F, CTR, OSD-PA&E wrote:
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> 
> before getting too mired in minutia, read/reread all the howto etc on
> netbooting. things like /usr lend themselves nicely to read-only NFS (or
> GFS) mounts. / (root) should be writable by just the host it applies to. So
> GFS is again, not particularly useful IMO. mailspools and common
> html/jsp/applet sort of directories are candidates for GFS. Before you go
> with clustering, might want to think hard whether it makes sense to go to
> all that bother. a load balancer (eg. piranah or commercial) and machines
> mounting NFS may accomplish what you are really after.







More information about the Linux-cluster mailing list