Search Results

Search found 4 results on 1 pages for 'rhcs'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • RHCS: GFS2 in A/A cluster with common storage. Configuring GFS with rgmanager

    - by Pavel A
    I'm configuring a two node A/A cluster with a common storage attached via iSCSI, which uses GFS2 on top of clustered LVM. So far I have prepared a simple configuration, but am not sure which is the right way to configure gfs resource. Here is the rm section of /etc/cluster/cluster.conf: <rm> <failoverdomains> <failoverdomain name="node1" nofailback="0" ordered="0" restricted="1"> <failoverdomainnode name="rhc-n1"/> </failoverdomain> <failoverdomain name="node2" nofailback="0" ordered="0" restricted="1"> <failoverdomainnode name="rhc-n2"/> </failoverdomain> </failoverdomains> <resources> <script file="/etc/init.d/clvm" name="clvmd"/> <clusterfs name="gfs" fstype="gfs2" mountpoint="/mnt/gfs" device="/dev/vg-cs/lv-gfs"/> </resources> <service name="shared-storage-inst1" autostart="0" domain="node1" exclusive="0" recovery="restart"> <script ref="clvmd"> <clusterfs ref="gfs"/> </script> </service> <service name="shared-storage-inst2" autostart="0" domain="node2" exclusive="0" recovery="restart"> <script ref="clvmd"> <clusterfs ref="gfs"/> </script> </service> </rm> This is what I mean: when using clusterfs resource agent to handle GFS partition, it is not unmounted by default (unless force_unmount option is given). This way when I issue clusvcadm -s shared-storage-inst1 clvm is stopped, but GFS is not unmounted, so a node cannot alter LVM structure on shared storage anymore, but can still access data. And even though a node can do it quite safely (dlm is still running), this seems to be rather inappropriate to me, since clustat reports that the service on a particular node is stopped. Moreover if I later try to stop cman on that node, it will find a dlm locking, produced by GFS, and fail to stop. I could have simply added force_unmount="1", but I would like to know what is the reason behind the default behavior. Why is it not unmounted? Most of the examples out there silently use force_unmount="0", some don't, but none of them give any clue on how the decision was made. Apart from that I have found sample configurations, where people manage GFS partitions with gfs2 init script - https://alteeve.ca/w/2-Node_Red_Hat_KVM_Cluster_Tutorial#Defining_The_Resources or even as simply as just enabling services such as clvm and gfs2 to start automatically at boot (http://pbraun.nethence.com/doc/filesystems/gfs2.html), like: chkconfig gfs2 on If I understand the latest approach correctly, such cluster only controls whether nodes are still alive and can fence errant ones, but such cluster has no control over the status of its resources. I have some experience with Pacemaker and I'm used to that all resources are controlled by a cluster and an action can be taken when not only there are connectivity issues, but any of the resources misbehave. So, which is the right way for me to go: leave GFS partition mounted (any reasons to do so?) set force_unmount="1". Won't this break anything? Why this is not the default? use script resource <script file="/etc/init.d/gfs2" name="gfs"/> to manage GFS partition. start it at boot and don't include in cluster.conf (any reasons to do so?) This may be a sort of question that cannot be answered unambiguously, so it would be also of much value for me if you shared your experience or expressed your thoughts on the issue. How does for example /etc/cluster/cluster.conf look like when configuring gfs with Conga or ccs (they are not available to me since for now I have to use Ubuntu for the cluster)? Thanks you very much!

    Read the article

  • Cluster FIle System

    - by Ben
    We are looking for to choose a clustered file system for our in house appplication. Let me first highlight my requirement. we have a storage and 2 servers at present.We get the data files from remote servers to our server and on both servers we are running our application to access those data and make a final result as per our requirements. In future may be after 3-4 months, we can add another servers in current cluster pool to handle more data load from remote location data senders. So my requirement is that to integrate same storage partition on 2-3 servers , it might be 4-5 more servers in future, My application read data from storage partition and write back to storage partition. Is there any bottleneck / limitation from RHCS , GFS2 or anything.? We are new with RHCS + GFS and all. Can we have any other better approach or someway to deal with our requirement light way? what is the best OS version for this ? how's RHEL 6.4 64 bit ? please share some case study or some gudie reference as per past experiences with such environnmnets Regards, Ben

    Read the article

  • Red Hat cluster: Failure of one of two services sharing the same virtual IP tears down IP

    - by js01
    I'm creating a 2+1 failover cluster under Red Hat 5.5 with 4 services of which 2 have to run on the same node, sharing the same virtual IP address. One of the services on each node needs a (SAN) disk, the other doesn't. I'm using HA-LVM. When I shut down (via ifdown) the two interfaces connected to the SAN to simulate SAN failure, the service needing the disk is disabled, the other keeps running, as expected. Surprisingly (and unfortunately), the virtual IP address shared by the two services on the same machine is also removed, rendering the still-running service useless. How can I configure the cluster to keep the IP address up?

    Read the article

  • Xen guests accessing LUNs

    - by mechcow
    We are using RHEL5.3 with a Clarion SAN attached by FC. Our situation is that we have a number of LUNs presented to Hosts and we want to dynamically present the LUNs to Xen Guests. We are not sure on what the best practice approach is to set this up. The Xen guests will form a cluster together and need the LUNs only for data partitions, i.e. when they are actively running services. So one approach would be to always present all disks to all Xen guests, and then rely up on the cluster software, and mount itself, to not mount the disk twice in two locations. This sounds kinda risky and also is not very secure (one cracked guest can see/destroy all the data). Another approach would be to dynamically add and remove the disks from the Xen guests at the dom0 level (using xm block-attach). This could work but sounds slightly complicated, I'm wondering whether Red Hat Cluster Suite supports this in some way or whether there are scripts to do this. Yet another approach would be to have the LUNs endpointed at the Xen guests themselves - I'm not sure whether this is technically possible since the multipathing has to be done at the Host level.

    Read the article

1