[Lustre-discuss] lustre failover pairs
Brian J. Murrell
Brian.Murrell at Sun.COM
Wed May 13 10:43:26 PDT 2009
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 10:19 -0700, John White wrote:
> Good Morning Folks,
> A quick question on lustre failover as far as OSSs are concerned.
> Can failover pairs be in an (for lack of a better phrase) active-
> active setup?
You are not lacking a better phrase. That's exactly the nomenclature we
use to describe what you are looking for and yes, you most definitely
can do active-active OSSes. I'd guest that a great portion of our
failover-using customers are doing this.
> Looking at the lustre docs, it looks like this is not the standard
> operating procedure.
Hrm. Can you point out where you are getting this impression from? Are
you sure you are not just reading one of several scenarios?
> Rather, it looks like a "active-passive" setup
> where one OSS owns all the OSTs and the failover is more a warm spare
> ready to kick into action when a failure occurs but not serving any
> data requests while in full production.
That's certainly a valid operating mode for OSSes, and the only failover
mode supported for MDSes, but active-active OSSes is most certainly
supported, and documented I thought.
b.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss-lustre.org/attachments/20090513/a134e81b/attachment-0001.pgp>
More information about the lustre-discuss
mailing list