[cgl_discussion] Another POC for CFH.2.0 NFS Server Failover

Steven Dake sdake at mvista.com
Mon Jun 30 11:47:30 PDT 2003


Yi,

Thanks for the great research and the pointer. Is there a web page which
describes the methodology you used to set this stuff up? If so, we can
add that to the list of PoC references too.

Julie, can you add this to the PoC references?

Zhu, Yi wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Below link in linux-ha-dev list talked about support NFS Server Failover by linux-ha.
>http://lists.community.tummy.com/pipermail/linux-ha-dev/2003-June/006000.html
>
>The main issue to support this feature however, is not the cluster framework, it is
>the nfs-utils version. statd in nfs-utils version earlier than 0.3.3 doesn't support the 
>"-n" switch, which is used to specify the hostname the clients are mounting from.
>Modern Linux releases are all sufficient with the requirement. Redhat 7.3 uses 
>nfs-utils 0.3.3, UL 1.0 uses 1.0.1, and so on.
>
>I have successfully setup the NFS Server Failover with linux-ha with a little 
>modification with the configuration files. For detail information, please refer
>http://lists.community.tummy.com/pipermail/linux-ha-dev/2003-June/006012.html
>
>I did some basic test on the NFS Failover service. The service can be resumed on
>the backup server. That is, all nfs mounted directory remains mounted after the 
>failover, all the read/write request are queued during the takeover and are processed
>after the takeover.
>
>I did not test the authentication things because I'm not familar with that. Would
>anyone tell me what is a NFS authenticated client?
>
>I tried both kimberlite and linux-ha for the NFS Server Failover requirement. IMHO,
>for the NFS Server Failover requirement, linux-ha can do as well as, if not better than
>kimberlite. Shall we put linux-ha as another PoC for the CFH.2.0 NFS Server Failover
>requirement?
>
>Thanks,
>  
>




More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list