[ale] Fileserver/filesystem replication

[Greg]

http://www.open-mag.com/01973583279.shtml is an article dealing with this,
but unless it is free I would persue Bob's solution.

http://www.open-mag.com/4089418100.html might have some more articles on
this, as I have only one-glanced the site (site courtesy of someone on this
list)

Greg

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org]On Behalf Of Bob
> Toxen
> Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 4:14 AM
> To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts
> Subject: Re: [ale] Fileserver/filesystem replication
>
>
> Ya want real-time replication.  I'll give ya real-time replication.
>
> 1. Build your ext3 or ReiserFS on top of Linux software mirroring.
> 2. Make the second (mirror) disk a network disk device.
> 3. Ensure that writes are not acknowledged until they percolate through
>    to the remote real hard disk.
>
> Done.
>
> Not only do you get true real-time remote mirroring BUT with any decent
> DB your transactions will be consistent in the event of failover.
>
> Bob Toxen
> bob at verysecurelinux.com               [Please use for email to me]
> http://www.verysecurelinux.com        [Network&Linux/Unix
> security consulting]
> http://www.realworldlinuxsecurity.com [My book:"Real World Linux
> Security 2/e"]
> Quality Linux & UNIX security and SysAdmin & software consulting
> since 1990.
>
> "Microsoft: Unsafe at any clock speed!"
>    -- Bob Toxen 10/03/2002
>
> > On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 10:06:20AM -0500, Matt Smith wrote:
> > Does anyone have experience with any filesystem replication methods
> > other than rsync alone?  I'm looking for something a little
> more real-time
> > (preferably not scheduled) to do at a minimum a one-way replication to a
> > "backup" server, and ideally, a two-way replication so that two servers
> > could be used in parallel.
>
> > I realize the former could be accomplished with a frequently scheduled
> > rsync, but I'm hoping for something a little more robust than that.
> > I can tolerate a one-way copy to the backup server as long as it's done
> > very quickly after a file is modified, because if I ever have to fail
> > over to the backup server for reads, it probably means the
> primary is down
> > hard so I won't have to worry about copying updates to it any time soon.
> > I'm handling the failover via a NFS connection through a F5
> Load balancer
> > that will point the connections to the primary server unless
> it's down...
>
> > I've looked into coda, several clustering filesystems: pvfs, and a few
> > others (some commercial, but I've got no budget for this, of course),
> > but they all seem to either lack the nonscheduled replication
> I'm looking
> > for, or are more focused on parallel access than replication for fault
> > tolerance.
>
> > Thanks in advance for any feedback on your experiences.
>
> > --Matt
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>