[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       lustre-discuss
Subject:    [Lustre-discuss] lustre as a replacement for DFS
From:       brent () phys ! ufl ! edu (Brent A Nelson)
Date:       2006-10-27 12:05:21
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.64.0610271358490.717 () atma ! phys ! ufl ! edu
[Download RAW message or body]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006, Mustafa A. Hashmi wrote:

> On 10/27/06, Brent A Nelson <brent@phys.ufl.edu> wrote:
>> You can't do a drbd0.8-style active/active, i.e. you can't have a single
>> storage partition be served by multiple servers simultaneously.
>
> Actually, drbd 0.8 allows for both nodes to be masters now -- I was
> wondering if this what you meant by active/active on nodes.
>

Right; you can't do that with a Lustre partition.  GFS can do that, 
although I would expect its performance to be much lower than Lustre.

>> However, you can serve different partitions/disks/logical volumes/whatever
>> from different servers and be active/active that way (Lustre will merge
>> all these different partitions into one filesystem, or for however many
>> you have it configured).  If one node fails, you just failover its
>> partitions to the drbd "sister" server.
>
> That is indeed our current setup -- however, that makes an
> active/passive setup where the replicated drbd partitions are
> passively standing by till heartbeat fails them over (and makes them
> primary).
>

active/passive from a storage partition standpoint, right, but 
active/active from a node-level point-of-view.  One server serves out half 
the storage while the other server serves out the other half (even if it's 
the same Lustre filesystem, so you do get the performance boost of both 
servers running simultaneously).

Thanks,

Brent

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]