Hi,
well while v1 is easier to setup, I would nevertheless recommend
sticking to v2 in the long turn, because of OCF resource agents and
other features such as monitoring and constraints which are not usable
in v1. Another point is support and development, as the majority is
using v2, there bugs are most likely discovered and fixed and new OCF
agents are being written or existing ones are being further developed.
This is not the case for v1.
my 50 cents, :)
Lars.
Sloan schrieb:
Hello list,
I caught some of Alan Robertson's talk on linux-ha earlier this month in
San Francisco, and was fascinated by the possibilities. I have a basic
setup here with 2 machines providing a high availability mysql database,
or at least that is the goal. It's up and running but still seems a bit
temperamental, so I think I need to make the rules a bit more sophisticated.
My main question is this: If we have a 2-node cluster, which will always
be a 2-node cluster, is there any benefit to using v2 semantics rather
than making it a simple v1 cluster? I'm thinking in particular as
regards the scenario where one of the boxes suffers a catastrophic
failure, and how quorum would deal with that.
Or, would it better to just add a 3rd box that hosts no services, but
merely acts as part of the cluster for management/quorum purposes?
Forgive my naivety, I'm still scrounging through bits of documentation,
so if my questions reflect a profound misunderstanding of some basic
tenets, a clue-by-four would be gratefully received.
I appreciate your insights -
Joe
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
