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

List:       ngw
Subject:    Re: [ngw] Linux file system decision For Groupwise - Why so confusing???
From:       "Alister Leask" <awleask () gmail ! com>
Date:       2008-03-31 20:38:58
Message-ID: 397cc55b0803311338j73ab4a89u71d4d219d9582b08 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

A couple of words of warning regarding NCS on VMware ESX:

Firstly, we are using RDMs and were advised to share the RDM file
pointer thingy with all the guests. There appears to be a limit under
3.0.2 to the number of guests that can access one shared RDM pointer
file thingy - 9. Our 11 node cluster would not admit the last two
nodes unless we shutdown one of the joined nodes.

Secondly, we were unable to get an official statement of support for
NCS on ESX. As far as we were able to find out from VMware the only
supported clustering is MS and then only two nodes. The person we
spoke to said that _IF_ NCS was supported it would be likely to be two
nodes only as well.

We no longer have a NCS cluster for GW due to not being officially
supported - at least, supported to our satisfaction.

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:38 AM, Scott Kunau <skunau@igtg.net> wrote:
> Cherie,
> 
> We were talking about the SBD partition this morning.  To complete the project, \
> I'll need 13 LUNs presented from the SAN to the two ESX hosts.  Subsequently those \
> will be presented to the various nodes in the clusters that run on top of ESX.  \
> Using Novell Cluster Services on the virtual servers that are controlled by two ESX \
> 3.5.x hosts gives us "high availability" at two levels:  1) if the physical hosts \
> has trouble we have the Virtual Center Manager that will V-motion the servers \
> running on that host over to the other and 2) if a GroupWise/or cluster resource \
> has trouble, it will do the normal NCS failover to one of the other nodes.  Our ESX \
> servers are blades with 64 GB of RAM.  When we all done with all of the \
> virtualization, I'm told there will be 36+ blades holding every server in the \
> company that can be virtualized. 
> Scott
> 
> > > > "Cherie Turek" <CTurek@northbranch.k12.mn.us> 03/28/08 10:13 AM >>>
> 
> We are also looking at moving from 4 physical nodes (with clustered resources) to \
> Virtual ESX guests.  However, we are struggling with the idea of continuing to use \
> Novell Clustering or not.  If we moved to a virtualized environment, we would most \
> likely have to create a new SBD partition for these new OES2 Linux nodes.  We \
> currently do not allow our ESX servers to see our production SAN data storage.  Is \
> that what you are planning to do? Any information or ideas you have on this subject \
> would be most helpful. 
> 
> 
> > > > "Scott Kunau" <skunau@igtg.net> 3/28/2008 9:25 AM >>>
> I just finished building nine new OES2 servers on VMWare ESX and I used EXT3 and \
> LVM for the host OS partitions but I will use NSS for the clustered partitions that \
> six post offices, six domains and three gateways will use when I'm done.  Currently \
> there are four post offices, two gateways and three domains on standalone physical \
> hardware but we're virtualizing and clustering and making both GWIA and WebAccess \
> "highly" available.  Our server architect/Linux geek has said he would rather not \
> have NSS on any server here...not sure why but oh well. 
> I didn't know about disabling the various default features  of a NSS pool/volume on \
> OES2 to increase performance for GW.  A year ago I built two multi-node physical \
> clusters on OESv1 and all partitions (clustered/non-clustered) were Reiser and to \
> the best of my knowledge, it is running fine. 
> 
> 
> 
> > > > "Eric Feldman" <Efeldman@garlandisd.net> 03/27/08 2:01 PM >>>
> OES2, like OES1 has two flavors: Linux (running on top of SLES10SP1) and Netware \
> (which is NW65SP7 with Edir 8.8).  That being said, there is "nothing" new in \
> OES2-Netware, its effectively just a rollup patch. 
> That OES2-Netware version is apparently the "last" version that will be able to be \
> installed to Physical hardware, everything after this is intended to be virtualized \
> (that info is from the ATT session on migrating from Netware to OES2 at Brainshare \
> and I don't know how Novell will enforce/handle that). 
> About the filesystem decision.....what I took away from 2 different sessions at at \
> Brainshare was different. Danita Zanre's Migrating to GW on Linux session and Tim \
> Heywood/Mark Robinson's Clustering session both indicated a potential data loss \
> issue with EXT3+H-Tree and Groupwise had been discovered in the last 30 days and \
> were recommending NSS or Reiser....so I don't know what to think anymore! <Gets out \
> the Linux Filesystem Dart Board>  TO be honest I don't know enough about Linux \
> filesystems to make a recommendation, so hopefully I can use everyone else's ideas \
> down the road. At this point, I am still working on a Netware 5.0 to Netware 6.5 \
> upgrade/migration and after that is done I plan to take a week off.....and then \
> start planning the inevitable OES2-Linux upgrade for next year.   By then OES2-SP1 \
> should be out the door so hopefully some of this will be addressed.  \
> Procrastination FTW! 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Feldman
> Garland ISD Technology
> Network Engineer
> efeldman@garlandisd.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > > > "Gregg A. Hinchman" <Gregg@HinchmanConsulting.com> 3/27/2008 1:41 PM >>>
> OES2 is not NetWare either as I understand it.  Its Linux and you can Virtualize NW \
> as I understand it.  Migrations from NW to OES2 environments are difficult at best \
> as the tools are lacking.  I have this from a strong OES2 guy that works with me \
> and has done 2 migrations already for customers. 
> 
> --
> 
> 
> Take Care.
> 
> Gregg A. Hinchman
> Consultant
> Gregg@HinchmanConsulting.com ( mailto:Gregg@HinchmanConsulting.com )
> 
> A Novell Consulting Partner
> 317.329.0288 Office
> 413.254.2819 eFax
> 
> "Courage is doing what is right."
> 
> "Do not be bound to any doctrine, theory or ideology, even Buddhist ones. All \
> systems of thought are guiding means, not absolute truth."  Thich Nhat Hanh, \
> Vietnamese monk. 
> 
> 
> 
> > > > On 3/27/2008 at 2:32 PM, in message UID32293-1162625558, Kathy
> Bannister<Banniste@audits.ga.gov> wrote:
> > The Novell Life Cycle page says  the replacement for NetWare will be Open
> > Enterprise Server.
> > 
> > Open Enterprise Server can be either NetWare or Linux.
> > 
> > OES has an end of support date of July 2009
> > 
> > OES 2 has an end of support date of 2011.
> > 
> > Does this mean the next version of OES after OES 2 will not be available on
> > NetWare?  Whew.....
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > > "Daniel Straka" <dstraka@caspercollege.edu> 3/27/2008 1:33 PM >>>
> > Here's what I saw at Brainshare, this is taken directly from a slide that
> > Shawn Hoopes and Mitchell Smith used.
> > 
> > Currently NetWare 6.5 will continue to be supported as
> > per the Novell Life-cycle page
> > - http://support.novell.com/lifecycle
> > > End of general support: 07 March 2010
> > > End of extended support: 07 March 2012
> > > End of self-support: 07 March 2015
> > - These dates include both Physical and Virtual NetWare
> > servers
> --- Scanned by eMail Protection Services---
> 
> 
> --
> 
> 
> Visit http://www.ngwlist.com for help unsubscribing
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Visit http://www.ngwlist.com for help unsubscribing
> 
> 



-- 
Alister Leask

--
Visit http://www.ngwlist.com for help unsubscribing


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