On 30/04/19 6:59 PM, Strahil Nikolov wrote: It do take care those, but need to follow certain prerequisite, but please fencing won't configured for this setup. May we think about in future. -- Jiffin > > Still, this will be a lot of work to achieve. > > Best Regards, > Strahil Nikolov > > On Apr 30, 2019 15:19, Jim Kinney <jim.kinney(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >> +1! >> I'm using nfs-ganesha in my next upgrade so my client systems can use NFS instead of fuse mounts. Having an integrated, designed in process to coordinate multiple nodes into an HA cluster will very welcome. >> >> On April 30, 2019 3:20:11 AM EDT, Jiffin Tony Thottan <jthottan(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Some of you folks may be familiar with HA solution provided for nfs-ganesha by gluster using pacemaker and corosync. >>> >>> That feature was removed in glusterfs 3.10 in favour for common HA project "Storhaug". Even Storhaug was not progressed >>> >>> much from last two years and current development is in halt state, hence planning to restore old HA ganesha solution back >>> >>> to gluster code repository with some improvement and targetting for next gluster release 7. >>> >>>   I have opened up an issue [1] with details and posted initial set of patches [2] >>> >>> Please share your thoughts on the same >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Jiffin >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/663 >>> >>> [2] https://review.gluster.org/#/q/topic:rfc-663+(status:open+OR+status:merged) >>> >>> >> -- >> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. All tyopes are thumb related and reflect authenticity. > Keep in mind that corosync/pacemaker  is hard for proper setup by new admins/users. > > I'm still trying to remediate the effects of poor configuration at work. > Also, storhaug is nice for hyperconverged setups where the host is not only hosting bricks, but  other  workloads. > Corosync/pacemaker require proper fencing to be setup and most of the stonith resources 'shoot the other node in the head'. > I would be happy to see an easy to deploy (let say 'cluster.enable-ha-ganesha true') and gluster to be bringing up the Floating IPs and taking care of the NFS locks, so no disruption will be felt by the clients. > > Still, this will be a lot of work to achieve. > > Best Regards, > Strahil NikolovOn Apr 30, 2019 15:19, Jim Kinney <jim.kinney(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> +1! >> I'm using nfs-ganesha in my next upgrade so my client systems can use NFS instead of fuse mounts. Having an integrated, designed in process to coordinate multiple nodes into an HA cluster will very welcome. >> >> On April 30, 2019 3:20:11 AM EDT, Jiffin Tony Thottan <jthottan(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Some of you folks may be familiar with HA solution provided for nfs-ganesha by gluster using pacemaker and corosync. >>> >>> That feature was removed in glusterfs 3.10 in favour for common HA project "Storhaug". Even Storhaug was not progressed >>> >>> much from last two years and current development is in halt state, hence planning to restore old HA ganesha solution back >>> >>> to gluster code repository with some improvement and targetting for next gluster release 7. >>> >>> I have opened up an issue [1] with details and posted initial set of patches [2] >>> >>> Please share your thoughts on the same >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Jiffin >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/663 >>> >>> [2] https://review.gluster.org/#/q/topic:rfc-663+(status:open+OR+status:merged) >> >> -- >> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. All tyopes are thumb related and reflect authenticity.