On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:20 AM, Jason Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At my organization, we have been putting a lot of work into Linux-HA > implementation. I have even wrote an OCF Resource Agent for exporting > NFS shares using exportfs. > > I have 2 concerns with Linux-HA > > 1. I heard that Linux-HA is moving away from resource groups. To me > this doesn't seem to make sense It is an easy way to organize, start > and stop resources that are related. Can anyone confirm or deny this > accusation.
Deny, they'll always exist. What people should understand however, is that they are "just" a syntactic shortcut for a bunch of regular resources and a few ordering and colocation constraints. The trade-off is that they don't expose the full potential of what is possible if they were configured the long way > 2. Sometime when an unrelated resource is broken, I will change a > different resource or resource group's target_role. Even though the > cluster registers that the target_role has changed, the status of the > resource WILL NOT change. Perhaps the individual resources have their own target_role set. If you create this situation again, please create a bug and attach the output of: cibadmin -Ql > In order for Linux-HA to be reliable, I > can't worry about unrelated resources. > > Number 2 concerns me much more. While I am running 2.1, most > distributions ship with 2.07. Is there an advantage to having 2.07? Not unless you have 2.0.6 or something even older ;-) > 2.08 is the version which implements the quorum server and is very > important. What might cause Linux-HA to be unresponsive to changes? Assuming you mean to the configuration, then its hard to say without seeing the configuration (see above). _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
