[Lustre-discuss] DRBD + active/active OST, again

Andrew Godziuk andrew at cloudaccess.net
Tue Mar 2 05:41:07 PST 2010


On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Johann Lombardi <johann at sun.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 02:01:06PM +0100, Andrew Godziuk wrote:
>> Then I guess this part of manual should be changed:
...
>> to state explicitly that active/active scenario is only possible when
>> OSS is active for some OSTs and passive for some others.
>
> Yes, i think this is explained in the next section:
> "For OST failover, multiple OSS nodes are configured to be able to serve the
> same OST. However, only one OSS node can serve the OST at a time. An OST can be
> moved between OSS nodes that have access to the same storage device using
> umount/mount commands. "

It sounded to me like contradiction and made me ask the question here.
Now that I know, it sounds logical.

> BTW, in your case, since you did not specify a failover node for the OST at
> mkfs time, the lustre clients are not aware of the alternative path and thus
> won't try to reach the OST through the 2nd OSS. So your filesystem should
> still be safe since the 2nd mount instance should never receive any client
> connection. However, I would still recommend to umount the OST on the 2nd
> OSS asap.

This was just a test setup, I'll be specifying --failover in the live
setup for sure.

Again, thank you very much for your help.

-- 
Andrzej Godziuk
http://CloudAccess.net/



More information about the lustre-discuss mailing list