[sheepdog-users] Corosync Vs Zookeeper Backends

[Liu Yuan]

As andy noted, try 'dog node md info --all' to make sure your disks are
properly added to sheep

Yuan
2014-3-15 AM5:27于 "Andrew J. Hobbs" <ajhobbs at desu.edu>写道：

> As a follow up, it's specifically the line after your zookeeper entry.
>
> /meta /var/lib/sheepdog/disc0,...
>
> should read
>
> /meta,/var/lib/sheepdog/disc0,...
>
> As for why corosync vs zookeeper:  Two primary reasons come to mind.
> The first is corosync is based on multicast, which is not always
> supported on the switch.  In our case, it works fine on edge switches,
> but explicitly disabled at the network core.  Second reason is it's not
> unusual for corosync packets to drop under load (such as during a node
> rebuild if it's running same interface as sheepdog), where enough
> dropped packets result in a partition which causes sheepdog to panic and
> halt.  If you're running on IB, you are probably much more resilient to
> this due to the nature of how IPoIB works.  I've noticed also that
> corosync or zookeeper also have little storms when you perform a
> snapshot of a sheepdog vdi, which is another thing that can trigger a
> partition.
>
> I'm very interested in your performance numbers once you iron through
> this hiccup, as it's very much the direction I'm hoping to take our
> cluster going forward.  What with the price advantage of IB over 10G or
> 40G cards and switches.
>
> Best of luck!
>
> Andrew
>
>
> --
> sheepdog-users mailing lists
> sheepdog-users at lists.wpkg.org
> http://lists.wpkg.org/mailman/listinfo/sheepdog-users
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wpkg.org/pipermail/sheepdog-users/attachments/20140315/a28a95f8/attachment-0005.html>