[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1241360474.5596.4.camel@mulgrave.int.hansenpartnership.com>
Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 09:21:14 -0500
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: david@...g.hm
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Philipp Reisner <philipp.reisner@...bit.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@...e.de>,
Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb@...e.de>,
Kyle Moffett <kyle@...fetthome.net>,
Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenberg@...bit.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] DRBD: a block device for HA clusters
On Sat, 2009-05-02 at 22:40 -0700, david@...g.hm wrote:
> On Sun, 3 May 2009, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> > On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 09:33:35AM +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Andrew Morton
> >> <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:26:36 +0200 Philipp Reisner <philipp.reisner@...bit.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> This is a repost of DRBD
> >>>
> >>> Is it being used anywhere for anything? If so, where and what?
> >>
> >> One popular application is to run iSCSI and HA software on top of DRBD
> >> in order to build a highly available iSCSI storage target.
> >
> > Confirmed, I have several customers who're doing exactly that.
>
> I will also say that there are a lot of us out here who would have a use
> for DRDB in our HA setups, but have held off implementing it specificly
> because it's not yet in the upstream kernel.
Actually, that's not a particularly strong reason because we already
have an in-kernel replicator that has much of the functionality of drbd
that you could use. The main reason for wanting drbd in kernel is that
it has a *current* user base.
Both the in kernel md/nbd and drbd do sync and async replication with
primary side bitmaps. The main differences are:
* md/nbd can do 1 to N replication,
* drbd can do active/active replication (useful for cluster
filesystems)
* The chunk size of the md/nbd is tunable
* With the updated nbd-tools, current md/nbd can do point in time
rollback on transaction logged secondaries (a BCS requirement)
* drbd manages the mirror state explicitly, md/nbd needs a user
space helper
And probably a few others I forget.
James
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists