Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

This was one of those thoughts that were tickling the back of my mind.

I'm working on a home testbed of a high-availability cluster consisting of just computers, not a SAN or NAS for storage, just "if I wanted a server or two that were available even if the hardware failed and I had some old machines around to do it on, can I make it?" thing. Think RAID-1 at a system hardware level.

I was thinking of trying to do it by installing a Linux distro, installing DRBD in primary/primary mode with Pacemaker/STONITH, then installing Xen to virtualize the server(s) that would actually provide the systems to replicate.

Recent setups at work with VMWare ESXi had me wondering if there could be some kind of advantage to instead using ESXi to install Linux VM's on a couple machines, then use DRBD and Pacemaker/STONITH to replicate the server services between virtual machines on two VMWare ESXi systems (and remove Xen from the equation since I could spin up other VM's).

At the time I think I was liking the management interface's more or less straightforward way of giving stats on performance, disk use, etc. on the VM side, while I've seen nothing regarding management of Xen or DRBD other than the command line (although I hate having to use a Windows system to monitor the VMWare server).

Second thoughts told me that it would be an added layer of complexity and probably difficulty with networking, since I could probably more easily run Linux/DRBD replication with the dedicated hardware (each machine would have one NIC for the switch, one NIC to crossover to each other for disk I/O) and I wanted to find out what I could do to create such a cluster for "free"...and VMWare's solutions beyond ESXi are definitely not cheap.

Has anyone else tried something like this configuration, virtualizing machine running DRBD in the VM's instead of bare metal hardware? Are there configuration advantages to this beyond just performance/management monitoring with the free vSphere client (or "free" virtualization of choice)?

share|improve this question
This isn't an answer to you main question but if you want an alternative to Windows for ongoing management\monitoring of an ESXi environment there is the [VMware Infrastructure Management Appliance][1]. The easiest way to get it up and running still involves Windows and the VI Client but it gives you the sort of platform that you seem to need once you have it up and running. [1]: – Helvick Aug 3 '09 at 14:40
up vote 1 down vote accepted

At least with Xen my experience is that it's better to let the Dom0 handle the block devices. I haven't dealt with DRDB but with iSCSI it's better to have Dom0 be the iSCSI initiator and then just have the DomU use the resulting block device.

DRBD doesn't care about the filesystem that's running on the volumes so I would say this is probably best done in the DomO. This also gives you the ability to have DRBD backup Window DomUs.

You may also want to check out this question as it addresses some of your questions about running heartbeat on a vm.

share|improve this answer
I saw the other question, it was one of the primary reasons I rethought trying to virtualize two or more systems running DRBD inside the VM's; I know I can get VMWare to run on a 32 bit server (older version), but I don't know if I can get ESXi to talk to the network on one NIC and to another server on another NIC to direct traffic for routing purposes of special traffic. All VM DRBD activity would thus have to go out both NICs onto the general switch...didn't know if this was a "Bad Thing"(tm) – Bart Silverstrim Aug 3 '09 at 14:59

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.