FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 10-29-2008, 12:37 PM
"Marti, Rob"
 
Default GFS

Depends... since you still have to have shared storage, and more than likely GFS, why add the overhead of NFS?

Rob

-----Original Message-----
From: redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Kristoffer Knigga
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 8:35 AM
To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
Subject: RE: GFS

For something like /home, though, an small NFS cluster would probably be way less of a hassle than a huge cluster and it would still eliminate the single point of failure.



-----Original Message-----
From: redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Marti, Rob
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 8:26 AM
To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
Subject: RE: GFS

Its at least a partial replacement - instead of a single box exporting an NFS share for a bunch of boxes to mount (IE single point of failure) you have each box mount it directly.

But yes, you need the clusterware installed and configured for gfs to be useable.

-----Original Message-----
From: redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Kristoffer Knigga
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 8:24 AM
To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
Subject: RE: GFS

I just took RH436 last week, so here is what I understand from that:

You must have a basic cluster set up to use GFS. The reason being that everything using a shared file system like this must be able to communicate in order to negotiate locking. If there was no such communication, you'd have the possibility of node1 and node2 trying to write the same block at the same time, and thus causing inconsistent data. Red Hat Cluster Suite manages this communication to ensure everything is copasetic.

Shared storage + GFS is not a replacement for NFS.

Kris



-----Original Message-----
From: redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Golhar
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 3:50 PM
To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
Subject: GFS

Has anyone successfully setup GFS? I have SAN connected to several
computers by fibre, and it appears that GFS is the way to go as opposed
to use an NFS server.

Do I really need to set up all the other aspects of a Redhat cluster to
get GFS to work? There doesn't seem to be a good HOW-TO of this
anywhere, and the RedHat docs are not as helpful as I would have liked.



__________________________________________________ ____________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
__________________________________________________ ____________________

--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

__________________________________________________ ____________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
__________________________________________________ ____________________

--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
 
Old 10-29-2008, 12:46 PM
"Karchner, Craig (IT Solutions US)"
 
Default GFS

If you are going to access the same data file two or more servers you
must use some type of cluster filesystem. You do not need to run the
full cluster suite to use gfs. I use GFS to share files between two
servers. I do not have the cluster suite installed, that is for
application failover not file sharing.


Craig

-----Original Message-----
From: redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com
[mailto:redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Kristoffer Knigga
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 9:24 AM
To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
Subject: RE: GFS

I just took RH436 last week, so here is what I understand from that:

You must have a basic cluster set up to use GFS. The reason being that
everything using a shared file system like this must be able to
communicate in order to negotiate locking. If there was no such
communication, you'd have the possibility of node1 and node2 trying to
write the same block at the same time, and thus causing inconsistent
data. Red Hat Cluster Suite manages this communication to ensure
everything is copasetic.

Shared storage + GFS is not a replacement for NFS.

Kris



-----Original Message-----
From: redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com
[mailto:redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Golhar
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 3:50 PM
To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
Subject: GFS

Has anyone successfully setup GFS? I have SAN connected to several
computers by fibre, and it appears that GFS is the way to go as opposed
to use an NFS server.

Do I really need to set up all the other aspects of a Redhat cluster to
get GFS to work? There doesn't seem to be a good HOW-TO of this
anywhere, and the RedHat docs are not as helpful as I would have liked.



__________________________________________________ ____________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
__________________________________________________ ____________________

--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
 
Old 10-29-2008, 12:47 PM
Kristoffer Knigga
 
Default GFS

Well, because the cluster software would also cause overhead. The cluster requires a half dozen or more extra services to be running.

Also, best practices require fencing to be set up and working. I'd hate to have a machine with no failover capabilities spontaneously power cycled because of a network hiccup or something. Though I suppose you could get around that with fiber switch fencing instead of power fencing, but still, it wouldn't be pretty.



-----Original Message-----
From: redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Marti, Rob
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 8:38 AM
To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
Subject: RE: GFS

Depends... since you still have to have shared storage, and more than likely GFS, why add the overhead of NFS?

Rob

-----Original Message-----
From: redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Kristoffer Knigga
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 8:35 AM
To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
Subject: RE: GFS

For something like /home, though, an small NFS cluster would probably be way less of a hassle than a huge cluster and it would still eliminate the single point of failure.



-----Original Message-----
From: redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Marti, Rob
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 8:26 AM
To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
Subject: RE: GFS

Its at least a partial replacement - instead of a single box exporting an NFS share for a bunch of boxes to mount (IE single point of failure) you have each box mount it directly.

But yes, you need the clusterware installed and configured for gfs to be useable.

-----Original Message-----
From: redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Kristoffer Knigga
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 8:24 AM
To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
Subject: RE: GFS

I just took RH436 last week, so here is what I understand from that:

You must have a basic cluster set up to use GFS. The reason being that everything using a shared file system like this must be able to communicate in order to negotiate locking. If there was no such communication, you'd have the possibility of node1 and node2 trying to write the same block at the same time, and thus causing inconsistent data. Red Hat Cluster Suite manages this communication to ensure everything is copasetic.

Shared storage + GFS is not a replacement for NFS.

Kris



-----Original Message-----
From: redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Golhar
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 3:50 PM
To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
Subject: GFS

Has anyone successfully setup GFS? I have SAN connected to several
computers by fibre, and it appears that GFS is the way to go as opposed
to use an NFS server.

Do I really need to set up all the other aspects of a Redhat cluster to
get GFS to work? There doesn't seem to be a good HOW-TO of this
anywhere, and the RedHat docs are not as helpful as I would have liked.



__________________________________________________ ____________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
__________________________________________________ ____________________

--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

__________________________________________________ ____________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
__________________________________________________ ____________________

--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

__________________________________________________ ____________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
__________________________________________________ ____________________

--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
 
Old 10-29-2008, 12:50 PM
"Marti, Rob"
 
Default GFS

My point was, you wanted to use a "small NFS cluster". Theres no difference between a small NFS cluster, and using GFS directly. Unless by cluster you didn't mean RHCS.

-----Original Message-----
From: redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Kristoffer Knigga
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 8:48 AM
To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
Subject: RE: GFS

Well, because the cluster software would also cause overhead. The cluster requires a half dozen or more extra services to be running.

Also, best practices require fencing to be set up and working. I'd hate to have a machine with no failover capabilities spontaneously power cycled because of a network hiccup or something. Though I suppose you could get around that with fiber switch fencing instead of power fencing, but still, it wouldn't be pretty.



-----Original Message-----
From: redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Marti, Rob
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 8:38 AM
To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
Subject: RE: GFS

Depends... since you still have to have shared storage, and more than likely GFS, why add the overhead of NFS?

Rob

-----Original Message-----
From: redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Kristoffer Knigga
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 8:35 AM
To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
Subject: RE: GFS

For something like /home, though, an small NFS cluster would probably be way less of a hassle than a huge cluster and it would still eliminate the single point of failure.



-----Original Message-----
From: redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Marti, Rob
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 8:26 AM
To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
Subject: RE: GFS

Its at least a partial replacement - instead of a single box exporting an NFS share for a bunch of boxes to mount (IE single point of failure) you have each box mount it directly.

But yes, you need the clusterware installed and configured for gfs to be useable.

-----Original Message-----
From: redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Kristoffer Knigga
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 8:24 AM
To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
Subject: RE: GFS

I just took RH436 last week, so here is what I understand from that:

You must have a basic cluster set up to use GFS. The reason being that everything using a shared file system like this must be able to communicate in order to negotiate locking. If there was no such communication, you'd have the possibility of node1 and node2 trying to write the same block at the same time, and thus causing inconsistent data. Red Hat Cluster Suite manages this communication to ensure everything is copasetic.

Shared storage + GFS is not a replacement for NFS.

Kris



-----Original Message-----
From: redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Golhar
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 3:50 PM
To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
Subject: GFS

Has anyone successfully setup GFS? I have SAN connected to several
computers by fibre, and it appears that GFS is the way to go as opposed
to use an NFS server.

Do I really need to set up all the other aspects of a Redhat cluster to
get GFS to work? There doesn't seem to be a good HOW-TO of this
anywhere, and the RedHat docs are not as helpful as I would have liked.



__________________________________________________ ____________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
__________________________________________________ ____________________

--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

__________________________________________________ ____________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
__________________________________________________ ____________________

--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

__________________________________________________ ____________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
__________________________________________________ ____________________

--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
 
Old 10-29-2008, 12:50 PM
Kristoffer Knigga
 
Default GFS

How do you deal with locking and fencing, then?


-----Original Message-----
From: redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Karchner, Craig (IT Solutions US)
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 8:46 AM
To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
Subject: RE: GFS

If you are going to access the same data file two or more servers you
must use some type of cluster filesystem. You do not need to run the
full cluster suite to use gfs. I use GFS to share files between two
servers. I do not have the cluster suite installed, that is for
application failover not file sharing.


Craig

-----Original Message-----
From: redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com
[mailto:redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Kristoffer Knigga
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 9:24 AM
To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
Subject: RE: GFS

I just took RH436 last week, so here is what I understand from that:

You must have a basic cluster set up to use GFS. The reason being that
everything using a shared file system like this must be able to
communicate in order to negotiate locking. If there was no such
communication, you'd have the possibility of node1 and node2 trying to
write the same block at the same time, and thus causing inconsistent
data. Red Hat Cluster Suite manages this communication to ensure
everything is copasetic.

Shared storage + GFS is not a replacement for NFS.

Kris



-----Original Message-----
From: redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com
[mailto:redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Golhar
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 3:50 PM
To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
Subject: GFS

Has anyone successfully setup GFS? I have SAN connected to several
computers by fibre, and it appears that GFS is the way to go as opposed
to use an NFS server.

Do I really need to set up all the other aspects of a Redhat cluster to
get GFS to work? There doesn't seem to be a good HOW-TO of this
anywhere, and the RedHat docs are not as helpful as I would have liked.



__________________________________________________ ____________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
__________________________________________________ ____________________

--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

__________________________________________________ ____________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
__________________________________________________ ____________________

--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
 
Old 10-29-2008, 01:06 PM
Kristoffer Knigga
 
Default GFS

Here's kind of the scenario I have in my head: You have 10 machines you want to share /home. These machines are otherwise unrelated and may be some mixture of DB, DNS, HTTP, LDAP, or whatever. You could make a 10 node cluster without any applications or resources (basically just to handle the storage) and use GFS to mount up a shared LUN. This would require every machine in that group to also run the various cluster services (fenced, aisexec, groupd, dlm_controld, clvmd, etc.) and should have each one set up with some sort of fencing mechanism.

Or, you could set up two little machines in a true failover cluster exporting /home from off the SAN via NFS to the 10 various machines. Sure there'd be a bit of NFS overhead, but none of your other servers would have to worry about cluster stuff, like running all of that extra software or being fenced.

Whether or not this scenario is in anyway like what the original question asker had in mind, I don't know, but that's how I pictured it.



-----Original Message-----
From: redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Marti, Rob
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 8:51 AM
To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
Subject: RE: GFS

My point was, you wanted to use a "small NFS cluster". Theres no difference between a small NFS cluster, and using GFS directly. Unless by cluster you didn't mean RHCS.

-----Original Message-----
From: redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Kristoffer Knigga
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 8:48 AM
To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
Subject: RE: GFS

Well, because the cluster software would also cause overhead. The cluster requires a half dozen or more extra services to be running.

Also, best practices require fencing to be set up and working. I'd hate to have a machine with no failover capabilities spontaneously power cycled because of a network hiccup or something. Though I suppose you could get around that with fiber switch fencing instead of power fencing, but still, it wouldn't be pretty.



-----Original Message-----
From: redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Marti, Rob
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 8:38 AM
To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
Subject: RE: GFS

Depends... since you still have to have shared storage, and more than likely GFS, why add the overhead of NFS?

Rob

-----Original Message-----
From: redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Kristoffer Knigga
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 8:35 AM
To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
Subject: RE: GFS

For something like /home, though, an small NFS cluster would probably be way less of a hassle than a huge cluster and it would still eliminate the single point of failure.



-----Original Message-----
From: redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Marti, Rob
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 8:26 AM
To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
Subject: RE: GFS

Its at least a partial replacement - instead of a single box exporting an NFS share for a bunch of boxes to mount (IE single point of failure) you have each box mount it directly.

But yes, you need the clusterware installed and configured for gfs to be useable.

-----Original Message-----
From: redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Kristoffer Knigga
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 8:24 AM
To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
Subject: RE: GFS

I just took RH436 last week, so here is what I understand from that:

You must have a basic cluster set up to use GFS. The reason being that everything using a shared file system like this must be able to communicate in order to negotiate locking. If there was no such communication, you'd have the possibility of node1 and node2 trying to write the same block at the same time, and thus causing inconsistent data. Red Hat Cluster Suite manages this communication to ensure everything is copasetic.

Shared storage + GFS is not a replacement for NFS.

Kris



-----Original Message-----
From: redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Golhar
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 3:50 PM
To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
Subject: GFS

Has anyone successfully setup GFS? I have SAN connected to several
computers by fibre, and it appears that GFS is the way to go as opposed
to use an NFS server.

Do I really need to set up all the other aspects of a Redhat cluster to
get GFS to work? There doesn't seem to be a good HOW-TO of this
anywhere, and the RedHat docs are not as helpful as I would have liked.



__________________________________________________ ____________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
__________________________________________________ ____________________

--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

__________________________________________________ ____________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
__________________________________________________ ____________________

--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

__________________________________________________ ____________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
__________________________________________________ ____________________

--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

__________________________________________________ ____________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
__________________________________________________ ____________________

--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 02:45 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org