On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 05:25:00PM -0400, Edward Capriolo wrote: > I did mean glusterFS. > Now I have a questions about the file system flags. > > Suppose a VServer that has four physical disks. you mean a Linux-VServer Host, yes? > /mnt/disk1 formatted ext3 /dev/hda1 > /mnt/disk2 formatted ext3 /dev/hda2 > /mnt/disk3 formatted ext3 /dev/hda3 > /mnt/disk4 formatted ext3 /dev/hda4 > > If i built a vserver named test with a rootdirectory of /mnt/disk4, you mean a Linux-VServer Guest here, I presume > it would get installed to /mnt/disk4/test. The 'quota' would be > the fact that test could fill up disk4. that would definitely be the 'upper' bound > Question 1: The guest test is locked inside /mnt/disk4 > The guest has no access to disk1, disk2, disk3. True or False? depends, assuming that the barrier on /mnt/disk4/test/.. is intact, this will be true > Question 2: If test2 was also installed to /mnt/disk4/test2 could > that guest affect test1? again, depends on the setup. given that: - the barrier for both guests is intact - disk limits (per guest) are set so that one guest cannot go over e.g. half of the disk space they will only affect eachother marginally (shared I/O path and file allocations) HTH, Herbert > On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 01:21:27PM -0400, Edward Capriolo wrote: > >> I do not need the quota capabilities built into vserver. > >> I plan on giving each vserver its own logical volume. > > > > your decision, but some folks like the disk, memory > > and time saving benefits of the unification approach > > > >> I do not see why that volume could not be on a gluster FS. > > > > do you mean 'cluster' or really 'gluster' fs? > > > > for the former, no problem, as long as the filesystem > > supports the necessary flags, otherwise you'll end > > up with insecure guests, for the latter, I'm pretty > > sure that won't work out of the box > > > >> I have not tried yet. > > > > let us know how it goes, when you do ... > > > > best, > > Herbert > > > >> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 6:18 AM, Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at> wrote: > >> > On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 11:15:10AM +0200, Oliver Welter wrote: > >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >> >> Hash: SHA1 > >> >> > >> >> Hi > >> >> > >> >> ADNET Ghislain schrieb: > >> >> > >> >> > I wanted to share my /vserver between a bunch of host to be able > >> >> > to run a vserver from any host (not launch one on several host > >> >> > at the same time ). the goal is to use unification on all the > >> >> > vservers also. > >> >> > > >> >> > I have a SAN setup so how do you handle this to have the best > >> >> > performances ? Use a simple NFS server, a ocfs2 partition shared > >> >> > on all the nodes, a glusterfs one ? > >> >> > > >> >> Just to put an idea - I "share" my guest rootfs readonly simply by > >> >> having an rsync between the boxes on updates, which occure only > >> >> if I patch/update a server. You might even automate this using > >> >> inotify. The guest data is pulled in by an extra replicated disk > >> >> - as I have only two nodes, I use drbd, but you can use any other > >> >> clusterfs here too. So you do not need to find a fs that supports > >> >> unification. > >> > > >> > depending on _how_ you share the 'root fs' it might > >> > destroy the benefit of unification ... > >> > > >> > I'd be interested in the output of 'stat /bin/bash' > >> > (assuming that /bin/bash is shared) for two guests > >> > on the same host > >> > > >> > best, > >> > Herbert > >> > > >> >> Oliver > >> >> - -- > >> >> Protect your environment - close windows and adopt a penguin! > >> >> PGP-Key: 3B2C 8095 A7DF 8BB5 2CFF 8168 CAB7 B0DD 3985 1721 > >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > >> >> Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) > >> >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > >> >> > >> >> iD8DBQFIvlWeyrew3TmFFyERAklAAJ45+9mxuHO25t5aumXUue/udnM4WwCeO+hG > >> >> LxX00wCQ9eBQ6AgLf3RToeI= > >> >> =LmgE > >> >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >> > > >