Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 07:33:34 -0600 From: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> To: Josh Paetzel <josh@tcbug.org> Cc: "Michael W. Lucas" <mwlucas@michaelwlucas.com>, fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: hast exec vs devd for handling CARP events Message-ID: <CA%2BtpaK01M4BzwZWVB7W%2BgfrtSOsUP9_3ach7eRkcVb0EVsm-MQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <64BC4405-50B7-424F-9CB6-00A6475C4204@tcbug.org> References: <20151103173526.GA17299@mail.michaelwlucas.com> <64BC4405-50B7-424F-9CB6-00A6475C4204@tcbug.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Josh Paetzel <josh@tcbug.org> wrote: > Both hast and carp have an amazing propensity to go split brain. This has > devastating affects. > HAST has no more propensity for split brain than any other 2 node cluster HA storage IME. Proper fencing is really the best, but even a not quite perfect fencing setup is entirely sufficient for a great many use cases. In the cases where split-brain does occur, resolving it isn't an ELE either in a well designed HA system. HAST and heartbeat are the best combo I've used on FreeBSD and it's as good as the equivalents on other platforms. Real high end clustered HA like lustre is a different story on FreeBSD. -- Adam
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA%2BtpaK01M4BzwZWVB7W%2BgfrtSOsUP9_3ach7eRkcVb0EVsm-MQ>