Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:09:55 +0200 On 15/04/2011, at 01.01, Martin Fick wrote: > --- On Thu, 4/14/11, Gordan Bobic <gordan@bobich.net> wrote: >>> --- On Thu, 4/14/11, Gordan Bobic<gordan@bobich.net> >> [cuuuuuut] >> However >> - what use-case do you have where one guest will fail >> unrecoverably on one machine but resumes working on another >> machine with the exact same FS? In what case would a single >> guest fail without all of them failing? > > Think load balancing. Say 10 vservers, split them > so that 5 run on each host normally. If either host > goes down, the other one picks up the slack. > Everything runs slower, but at least it still runs. I think about the same considerations at the moment, planning a new setup. Why not make 2 DRBD shares, A and B, put half of the vserver guests on the A storage, unify, them, and then put the other half on the B share. All the vserver guests on the A DRBD share runs on the A-host, and like wise with the B host. In daily usage you have no open files from the B share on the A host, so all the memory would be unified. In case of a split brain you can keep the guests running, and once you get connection again easily resync the DRBD. In case of 1 vserver host failing then you can just start all the vserver guests in DRBD share A on the vserver host B. Yes that will not unify both groups of hosts, but that should only be until you get the A host up again. So, what do you think? JonB