[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