Slashdot Mirror
DRBD To Be Included In Linux Kernel 2.6.33
An anonymous reader writes "The long-time Linux kernel module for block replication over TCP, DRBD, has been accepted as part of the main Linux kernel. Amid much fanfare and some slight controversy, Linus has pulled the DRBD source into the 2.6.33 tree, expected to release February, 2010. DRBD has existed as open source and been available in major distros for 10 years, but lived outside the main kernel tree in the hands of LINBIT, based in Vienna. Being accepted into the main kernel tree means better cooperation and wider user accessibility to HA data replication."
How does this differ from the Network Block Device (NBD)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_block_device
Anyhow, what the fuck is DRBD and why the fuck should I care?
About 15 years ago, I worked for a place that used Tru64. It offered very similar technology to this. Frankly, we found typical hardware solutions to work better. Software is better at some things, but for work like this, you want it done as much in hardware as is possible.
We use DRBD for some very mission critical servers that require total redundancy. Combined with Heartbeat I can fail over from one server to another without any single point of failure. We've been using it for more then 5 years, and never had any major issues with it. It will be great to have it in the mainline kernel.
Why is it so hot? Where am I going? What am I doing in this handbasket?
All I have to say is that this is one of the inherent problems with Linux. Rather than the nice, logical, pristine system registry that Windows has you have a big mess of .conf files scattered all over the various disk partitions. Even the clean, responsive WIndows-type GUI cannot be found in Linux. You're stuck with some cobbled-together GUI if you're lucky. Most of the time you are left using a terminal shell like the the DOS dinosaur days.
I don't want to edit a hacked-up .conf file to get my modem to work, to get my video card's refresh rate correct, or to hear my speaker beep, thank you. I will stick with Windows, which has been around for years and is the most user-friendly operating system on the planet.
Heck, I remember back a few years ago our company's IT guy had the brainstorm of replacing our accounting system computers with Linux. After he found he couldn't get the accounting software to work on them the big boss yelled at him so bad that the poor guy broke down crying and swore he'd never try to push that Linux crap again. Can't say I blame him...
Just what we need, yet another networking module built into the kernel. Creating a fresh config with the 2.6 series kernels has become even more of a hassle since there are so many modules that are activated by default. To stop the insanity I have to go through and eliminate 90% of what's there so that 'make modules' doesn't take longer than the kernel proper. Most of them are targeted for special applications and don't need to be in a default build.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
This isn't really something that the majority of Linux users need, or want compiled into their kernel. For them, it's just another layer of complexity - something which linux zealots routinely lambast Microsoft for. It'll be interesting to see how many distros include it in their kernel compiles by default. Personally if you need this kind of installation, you better be sharper enough to recompile the support into the kernel.
Anyhoo, when I did I think I overdid it. I'm 99.9% sure I shat myself. I can feel the fecal matter streaming down my leg under my work slacks (no casual day until tomorrow).
So, what do I do? My boss is back now and keeps checking in on how I'm doing, since I'm a new hire. I'm pretty certain he can smell what's going on. I feel trapped!
Has this happened to any of you? Just wondering how I can sneak to the restroom and if I am able to, how I can work around this. No change of clothes here at work.
so when you get to that part of the kernel config, don't enable it.
It's a good thing the kernel supports modules, so that the 0.1% of users that use this feature can still have it supported without any performance or memory usage detriment to the other 99.9% of users.
It's a kernel module. Don't like it, don't load it.
Your "requirement": "something that the majority of Linux users need, or want" is irrelevant. There are LOTS and LOTS of drivers in the kernel for which this is true, probably MOST of them.
"it's just another layer of complexity" - NOT if you don't install the userland packages or load the kernel module.
"Personally" - you got a lotta nerve representing yourself as having a valid opinion about what does and does not constitute a useful feature.
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
It's not a layer, it's a module. Even if distros compile it, the result is just an extra driver file in the directory. It is only loaded if you need it. How does that add any bloat?
Even at a source code level, it is completely self contained in a directory, other than a couple of one-line changes to tell the build system to compile.
From the summary:
DRBD has existed as open source and available in major distros for 10 years
So distros already ship it. It's just one less patch for the distros to look after, and it sounds like the code got cleaned up a bit as part of the kernel merge.
For your information:
Call em crazy, but are there not things like modules. The modules are then either not installed or not linked into the kernel unless they are actually needed.
As you stated it really up to the distributions. Having it be part of the mainline kernel makes less work for me and I would imagine the distributors as well. I can update my systems without having to spend my time worrying about compiling that third party module.
Over five hours and we have an article on Linux and a puzzle and not even 200 posts between them? Have people finally abandoned Slashdork for a real tech site instead of this geek Oprah show wannabe?
He runs Gentoo you insensitive clod!
I admin AIX systems for my day job... One thing that's really nice about AIX is that the filesystem and underlying block device is highly integrated. This means that to resize a volume you can run a single command that does it on the fly. For AIX admins who are new to Linux it seems a step backwards and they liken it to HP-UX or some earlier volume management...
Ahh, but the beauty of having separate filesystem and block device is that it's so damn flexible. I can build an LVM volume group on iSCSI LUNs exported from a another system. In that VG I can create a set of LUNs that I can use for the basis of my DRBD volume. In that DRBD volume I can carve out other disks. Or I can multipath them. Or create a software RAID.
Anyhoo, DRBD is a really cool technology. It gives the ability to create HA pairs on the cheap. You can put anything from a shared apache docroot there to the disks for Oracle RAC. With fast networking available for cheap, almost any shop can have the toys that were once only affordable to big companies...
Mod the fucking parent post -1, Troll (and this post too).
It's 2010 and Linux *still* has no ZFS or DTrace. What a joke.
I am amazed anyone would use Linux for anything other than maybe controlling a toaster. Even then I wouldn't trust it to not burn the bread.
I dont like drbd (though i've used it for a while)... its a massive convoluted and complex mess and fairly inflexible.
Personally, im hoping dm-replicator gets near completion sometime soon though details of it are rather scarce (i do have a kernel built with the dm-replicator patches, but trying to do anything with it seems near impossible)...
I do a fair amount of work inside the storage world and drbd is just such a mess in so many ways.
I sounds very critical and so forth to drbd and thats not the way i mean to come across. What I really am trying to say is that its bloated for the small amount of functionality it does and with a couple of minor tweeks could do much MUCH more. Its a kewl piece of software, but like many FOSS projects has a hideous, weighty config prone to confusion (something you just dont need with DR).
Still, that is the way it is!
Honestly, unless you are tuning your operating system for some very specialized use, bloat isn't an issue.
The vast majority of users don't need to worry about bloat, and you'd have to seriously try to screw up Linux to make it as bloated as, say, Windows 7.
I am looking right now that the C:\WINDOWS directory for a windows 7 machine and its sitting at 11GB in size.
who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
Yes but what does it all mean?
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
Lot of different ways to get similar results. You might say I'm cloudy on which of these is really equivalent, is a good idea or the best way to do it, or has good performance.
There is Gluster which sits on top of any existing disk file system, via FUSE, I think. No kernel module needed, only runs a daemon. I tried version 2, and it worked fine, however I didn't demand much of it. They've just come out with version 3.0 that doesn't need libfuse anymore.
Or there's Lustre, which does need a kernel module, and has its own file system.
Are some of the new file systems under development, such as btrfs, going to have distributed, networked operation as a basic feature? I recall hearing that ZFS has some ability along those lines.
Or we don't bother with distribution at the file system level because we're using some sort of cloud where as part of distributing everything, the file systems are distributed too.
I haven't heard of NBD before. Of course there's NFS, which seemingly everyone agrees is slow and obsolete.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
FreeBSD users have been doing it for 7 years with the default kernel. I guess that's one reason why it's more popular with companies that depend on HA, such as Bank of America. I love having ZFS as well, the combination is sooooo bad ass :-)
For those that run BRDB and want to try it, can read this.
This isn't really something that the majority of Linux users need, or want compiled into their kernel.
So it's great that they don't need, nor they are forced to, have this kernel module in their kernel. And it is also great that, as everyone (including you) has access to the source code, it is possible to cherry pick what feature to have in the OS kernel. Isn't linux awesome?
For them, it's just another layer of complexity - something which linux zealots routinely lambast Microsoft for.
Source, please? Or are you mindlessly throwing baseless accusations?
It'll be interesting to see how many distros include it in their kernel compiles by default.
My guess is not many. But you know what? As it's a kernel module, if a distro doesn't include it then you can include it and if a distro does include it then you can also remove it. Isn't linux awesome?
Personally if you need this kind of installation, you better be sharper enough to recompile the support into the kernel.
And thankfully that's what linux gives you. More so, even if you don't need it you can also remove it. It's an odd bloat to have, being able to not only remove hand-picked features right out of the OS kernel and but also add them if you see fit. Isn't linux awesome?
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
Ah, Linux gets disk level clustering?
It is interesting to compare with what VMS offered 25 years ago:
- VMS could have multiple nodes (can DRBD? It is not obvious from the web site.)
- All VMS nodes have read and write access to the file systems
- The distributed lock manager helps with file locking in this case.
- VMS has the concept of quorum to avoid the "split brain" syndrom mentioned on the web page.
)9TSS
Half of that is probably due to the winsxs folder which has the same files with different names (so it really isn't using as much space as it appears).
See:
http://www.winvistaclub.com/f16.html
Then another 2+GB is the installer files.
Jesus christ, how much of a fucking idiot are you? Modules, kernel configs... learn how the fucking kernel works.
For them, it's just another layer of complexity - something which linux zealots routinely lambast Microsoft for.
Source, please? Or are you mindlessly throwing baseless accusations?
Just cruise Slashdot for examples of people picking on MS for included features and support that few folks need. Particularly when they turn into vulnerabilities (doesn't help when those features are enabled by default). I blame MS for that, as I get to go disable all those features like remote dcom and posix support when I harden boxes. Or I simply use something like nlite to trim all the fluff away. Microsoft is getting better, mostly on the server side, of disabling or not installing all the features unless actually needed.
I think people think linux is "unreliable" because they don't attribute lockups to their binary video card drivers. I've been using Linux as my main OS at home since late 1992, and have run my home PC 24x7 since 2000, and can only remember one kernel panic in all that time - but then again, I've never run a binary kernel module. If you think it is normal to run 3rd party drivers, because you're used to that from the Windows word, and then you do so under Linux, and Linux fails, you're unlikely to attribute the failure to the binary module and the risks of running one, but to Linux itself.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf