From owner-freebsd-cluster Sun Aug 20 19:59:53 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-cluster@freebsd.org Received: from sanson.reyes.somos.net (freyes.static.inch.com [216.223.199.224]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1699337B43C for ; Sun, 20 Aug 2000 19:59:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tomasa (tomasa.reyes.somos.net [10.0.0.11]) by sanson.reyes.somos.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA20186; Sun, 20 Aug 2000 22:51:03 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from fran@reyes.somos.net) Message-Id: <200008210251.WAA20186@sanson.reyes.somos.net> From: "Francisco Reyes" To: "Andrzej Bialecki" Cc: "cluster@freebsd.org" Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 23:00:15 -0400 Reply-To: "Francisco Reyes" X-Mailer: PMMail 2000 Professional (2.10.2010) For Windows 98 (4.10.2222) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Sharing disks for failover clustering Sender: owner-freebsd-cluster@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 01:28:15 +0200 (CEST), Andrzej Bialecki wrote: >Machine---+ > A | +-----+ > +-|Disks| >Machine-----| | > B +-----+ > >assuming you have a disk enclosure with 2-port controller. You may also >connect machines to a single cable and one port of the controller. Of >course, the volumes on these disks must be mounted only on single machine >at a time. What I was looking for was having both machines be able to see the disks at the same time. francisco Moderator of the Corporate BSD list http://www.egroups.com/group/BSD_Corporate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-cluster" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-cluster Mon Aug 21 3:55: 3 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-cluster@freebsd.org Received: from sanson.reyes.somos.net (freyes.static.inch.com [216.223.199.224]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D9E037B42C for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 03:54:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tomasa (tomasa.reyes.somos.net [10.0.0.11]) by sanson.reyes.somos.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA21318; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 06:46:17 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from fran@reyes.somos.net) Message-Id: <200008211046.GAA21318@sanson.reyes.somos.net> From: "Francisco Reyes" To: "Andrzej Bialecki" Cc: "cluster@freebsd.org" Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 06:55:56 -0400 Reply-To: "Francisco Reyes" X-Mailer: PMMail 2000 Professional (2.10.2010) For Windows 98 (4.10.2222) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Sharing disks for failover clustering Sender: owner-freebsd-cluster@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 10:00:08 +0200 (CEST), Andrzej Bialecki wrote: >Why, if I may ask? If you really want this, you quickly run into all sorts >of nasty locking problems - with NFS as well (most implementations of >lockd do quite poor job). Unless you want to build SSI (single system >image) cluster, you usually want 1 (one) instance of the application >running, and another on the second machine in a standby state (i.e. NOT >accessing the same data). Then, during failover, the first machine >unmounts the shared disk, and the second mounts it, and everybody is happy >Am I missing something? Crashes usually happen when nobody is around to do the necessary work to change the machines (i.e. vacation, weekend...). It is just the nature of the beast. As a far second best is to try to document things so "anyone" in the IT department can do the changes/reboot. francisco Moderator of the Corporate BSD list http://www.egroups.com/group/BSD_Corporate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-cluster" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-cluster Tue Aug 22 12: 5:48 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-cluster@freebsd.org Received: from garm.bart.nl (garm.bart.nl [194.158.170.13]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92BA637B43C for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:05:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from daemon.ninth-circle.org (root@daemon.ninth-circle.org [195.38.210.81]) by garm.bart.nl (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e7MJ5cG45582; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:05:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from asmodai@localhost) by daemon.ninth-circle.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA66882; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 20:58:22 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from asmodai) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 20:58:21 +0200 From: Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven To: Ronald G Minnich Cc: "freebsd-cluster@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Is this list active? Message-ID: <20000822205820.K14958@daemon.ninth-circle.org> References: <20000818104056.A84928@lucifer.bart.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: ; from rminnich@lanl.gov on Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 08:25:37AM -0600 Organisation: Ninth-Circle Enterprises Sender: owner-freebsd-cluster@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG -On [20000818 18:01], Ronald G Minnich (rminnich@lanl.gov) wrote: >On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote: > >> Just a curious question, I guess a keep alive type of system where a >> daemon per host sends out and acks keep alive messages is the easiest >> form of high availability, right? > >not so clear that it is useful, but it will work. We need to start somewhere. ;) And a keep-alive type of signaller daemon is the easiest to program and thus a good starting point. At least for me. -- Jeroen Ruigrok vd Werven/Asmodai asmodai@[wxs.nl|bart.nl|freebsd.org] Documentation nutter/C-rated Coder BSD: Technical excellence at its best The BSD Programmer's Documentation Project Abandon hope, all ye who enter here... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-cluster" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-cluster Tue Aug 22 13:53:52 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-cluster@freebsd.org Received: from post.mail.nl.demon.net (post-11.mail.nl.demon.net [194.159.73.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2965837B43E for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:53:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [212.238.54.101] (helo=freebie.demon.nl) by post.mail.nl.demon.net with smtp (Exim 3.14 #4) id 13RL3M-000AvF-00; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 20:53:49 +0000 Received: (from wkb@localhost) by freebie.demon.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA00702; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:53:57 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wkb) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:53:57 +0200 From: Wilko Bulte To: Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven Cc: Ronald G Minnich , "freebsd-cluster@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Is this list active? Message-ID: <20000822225357.C616@freebie.demon.nl> References: <20000818104056.A84928@lucifer.bart.nl> <20000822205820.K14958@daemon.ninth-circle.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <20000822205820.K14958@daemon.ninth-circle.org>; from jruigrok@via-net-works.nl on Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 08:58:21PM +0200 X-OS: FreeBSD 4.1-STABLE X-PGP: finger wilko@freebsd.org Sender: owner-freebsd-cluster@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 08:58:21PM +0200, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote: > -On [20000818 18:01], Ronald G Minnich (rminnich@lanl.gov) wrote: > >On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote: > > > >> Just a curious question, I guess a keep alive type of system where a > >> daemon per host sends out and acks keep alive messages is the easiest > >> form of high availability, right? > > > >not so clear that it is useful, but it will work. > > We need to start somewhere. ;) Right! > And a keep-alive type of signaller daemon is the easiest to program and > thus a good starting point. At least for me. I plan on building myself a Tru64 Trucluster in one of the coming weeks. This should give me a better feeling what a cluster can do. A complicated one in this case, but also a feature rich one. W/ -- Wilko Bulte wilko@freebsd.org Arnhem, the Netherlands To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-cluster" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-cluster Tue Aug 22 20:15:27 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-cluster@freebsd.org Received: from sanson.reyes.somos.net (freyes.static.inch.com [216.223.199.224]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BF2037B422 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 20:15:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tomasa (tomasa.reyes.somos.net [10.0.0.11]) by sanson.reyes.somos.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA27368; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 23:05:46 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from fran@reyes.somos.net) Message-Id: <200008230305.XAA27368@sanson.reyes.somos.net> From: "Francisco Reyes" To: "Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven" , "Wilko Bulte" Cc: "freebsd-cluster@freebsd.org" , "Ronald G Minnich" Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:49:47 -0400 Reply-To: "Francisco Reyes" X-Mailer: PMMail 2000 Professional (2.10.2010) For Windows 98 (4.10.2222) In-Reply-To: <20000822225357.C616@freebie.demon.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Is this list active? Sender: owner-freebsd-cluster@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:53:57 +0200, Wilko Bulte wrote: >> We need to start somewhere. ;) There was a package on Freshmeat.net today, tuesday, for clustering which seems to do something simmilar. It is probably most unix, but the description seemed to imply that it is mostly made up of commong programs called together by some script. francisco Moderator of the Corporate BSD list http://www.egroups.com/group/BSD_Corporate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-cluster" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-cluster Fri Aug 25 0:46: 9 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-cluster@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 558) id 1127037B424; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 00:46:09 -0700 (PDT) To: freebsd-cluster@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: transparent failover (was Re: Is this list active?) Message-Id: <20000825074609.1127037B424@hub.freebsd.org> Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 00:46:09 -0700 (PDT) From: hsu@FreeBSD.ORG (Jeffrey Hsu) Sender: owner-freebsd-cluster@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > Just a curious question, I guess a keep alive type of system where a > daemon per host sends out and acks keep alive messages is the easiest > form of high availability, right? You might want to look at HSRP and VRRP. The use of a virtual mac address is ingenious. References: http://relcom.eu.net/CURS/HSRP/cs009.htm http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/iosw/iore/prodlit/768_pb.htm VRRP RFC (ietf draft is more current) HSRP RFC To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-cluster" in the body of the message