Linux Low‑importance

	Linux portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinuxWikipedia:WikiProject LinuxTemplate:WikiProject LinuxLinux
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

Citation Needed for Speed Claim

Untitled

There's a claim that read I/O operates at a penalty over Fibre Channel that I think needs further qualification in order to improve the quality of the article. Many FC deployments operate at 850MB/s whereas SATA III operates at around 600MB/s (more info). I'm not saying this disproves the claim (if I thought that, I would have just removed it from the article) but it does bring us to the point where we need to either substantiate the claim or think about removing it. 152.8.99.118 (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious advantages of DRBD vs shared storage

I don't know how to rewrite properly these 2 points but there are some dubious contents:

Shared storage typically DO NOT have a single point of failure

Shared storage sold for cluster(HA) typically are fully redundant with 2 controllers, and each host is connected to both controllers. I have also seen 2 boxes JBOD used with software mirroring. I have never seen any HA setup with a SPOF, this argument is dubious IMHO Pweltz (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. With multipathing on the host side, and RAID on the SP-side (for the actual disks), where is the downtime supposed to come from? Failure of a particular storage device causes RAID to run degraded, failure of a path from that device to the Host's OS is redundant and so can run degraded. No single component in this setup should be a point of service failure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.8.99.118 (talk) 12:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overhead also dubious

Shared storage can also use SCSI/SAS direct-attached in a 2 nodes cluster. In this case it is as fast as it can get. I also doubt shared storage over FC would be slower. To be fair it should be mentioned DRBD would be sloer on write because of TCP overhead (except vs iSCSI perhaps) Pweltz (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Price, space and power

IMO the real advantage of DRBD is that you can do small HA setups, less expensive and more efficient in term of power. (Added a few words on that) Pweltz (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology Issues

I think this article may need to change it's terminology to something a little more standard to help people compare apples to apples. This helps assess advantages/disadvantages as well as understand the base material by making sure we're all using the same language to describe common elements. 90% of this article seems to have real value, but if it's not easily consumed by the target audience it may render the whole article moot.

The main issue I have is with the term "shared cluster storage"? It would seem that even if DRBD does take care of all high availability needs for storage, you're still going to need automatic service relocation (otherwise, if you're concerned with high availability, what happens when the OS on the active node kernel panics or some other non-storage related outage occurred?). Since HA clustering would probably have to go on anyways (and DRBD mount points becoming a resource they migrate if there was a failure) it's probably better to drop "cluster" from the name given to the target of the comparison. Also, what does it mean that it's "shared"? From what I'm reading DRBD is a RAID-1 mirror between two nodes.

From what I can tell the counter point to DRBD is supposed to be LUN's presented over a Fibre Channel or iSCSI SAN. If that is the case (we would need the original authors' input on this) then I think a better term would be "LUNs presented from a SAN" or "SAN presented LUNs" or something along those lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.8.99.118 (talk) 13:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Distributed Replicated Block Device. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130308081007/http://en.gentoo-wiki.com:80/wiki/Active-active_DRBD_with_OCFS2 to http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/Active-active_DRBD_with_OCFS2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Split Brain

How is DRBD at risk for Split-brain scenarios? Is DRBD immune? If not immune, what can be done to prevent Split-brain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaglet3d (talk • contribs) 14:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consider making the first paragraph clearer and more readable to the layperson

I visited this article trying to figure out what a DRBD is, and after reading the intro, I couldn't easily figure it out. Is it RAID for Linux? Is it something else?

If somebody comfortable with this topic wants to take a stab at making the intro less esoteric, go for it. It would really help the article's clarity. Thanks in advance. – Novem Linguae (talk) 09:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed this in part in my last edit on 21 June 2024. Isolary (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added Secondary Sources

I have added five secondary sources to the article to address reliance on primary sources. New sources include articles from suse.com, ubuntu.com, and slashdot.org. Please review the changes and consider whether the "primary sources" message box can now be removed. Thanks. Isolary (talk) 03:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved article to from "Distributed Replicated Block Device" to "DRBD"

I moved this article to its common name, DRBD. Rarely is the software referred to by its full name; instead, publishers and users refer to it by its acronym. An Internet search of the frequency of the full name vs the acronym substantiate this claim, as do any articles or other media that mention DRBD. Per the official guidance on the matter, I have done this without discussion beforehand, as I believe "it appears unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move." Isolary (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]