| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-users
[Xen-users] Re: Alternatives to cman+clvmd ?
Christopher Smith <csmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I am "managing" the shared storage [...] using cman+clvmd [...]
> However, this combination seems to be horribly unreliable. Any
> network hiccup more than a lost ping or two results in cman losing
> contact with the rest of the machines, which it frequently does not
> regain.
This isn't inherent to cman, I've been using it for years without much
problem. You have to handle fencing correctly, otherwise it will bite
you, no matter what timeouts you configure. But otherwise, it's OK.
> For example, failing one of the bonded NICs usually takes few
> seconds for everything to 'stabilise' again on the network, but in
> that time cman has lost contact with all the other nodes and often
> killed itself (or bits of itself) in the process.
This shouldn't happen. Either you misconfigured your bonding (though
a few seconds failover time doesn't sound gross), or more likely you
misconfigured cman: it's defaults aren't this strict, even.
Having said all this, managing the cluster infrastructure for so
little (clvm only) feels excessive indeed. But I don't know any
better way (other than doing volume management on the storage side).
--
Cheers,
Feri.
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
|
|
| |
|
Home