There are many tools, such as linux-ha, redhat-piranha, that do high availability and failover. The normal FHS calls for application data to be in /var, but having that move onto the failover partner is, imo, a bad idea. I don't want /var/logs, for example not being available to the ha partner which isn't running any services at the moment.
Currently, the FHS compliant method to deal with this would be to have /var have a whole lot of symbolic links to an undefined location (some have an internal standard of /apps) where the apps that failover store their data. It seems like a lot of sys admins have to make a lot of configurations. It can stay like that, but I wonder... Should the new FHS have a new hierachy for application data that will failover to the other side. Should application data be moved out of /var to enable transparent use of some other directory, like /apps, or /data. /var would be reserved for explicitly node local activities (every node in an HA cluster has it's own /var), whereas /apps would be for apps which are expected to switchover, and have /apps appear on the other node.
_______________________________________________ fhs-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss
