On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 5:59 PM, David Lang <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 02:44:36PM -0700, David Lang wrote: >>>> haresources2cib.py is obsolete and probably produces a bad >>>> cib.xml. The recommended way is to create a configuration using >>>> the crm shell. >>> >>> Ok, so this means that there is officially no migration path for those of us >>> using a V1 sty;e config >> >> haresources2cib had value once the XML was the only way to >> configure CRM. I think that converting haresources by hand >> doesn't take much effort anymore. It is also a good way to get >> acquainted with pacemaker and the crm shell. That was the reason >> haresource2cib was retired. > > opeque config files that can only be edited with special tools are the bane of > sysadmins who need to manage lots of boxes. I currently manage over a hundred > clusters of machines. with v1 style configs this is easy to integrate into the > other server management tools, if changes had to be done strictly via the crm > shell, this is much more complicated.
Yep. Even worse is a "GUI", whose use cannot be documented or automated. Even a simple question like "what did I just do ni the last 3 minutes" cannot be answered, like with bash history. >>> This is really starting to sound like we need to fork heartbeat back to the >>> 2.x or thereabouts when it could work for simple things easily. >> >> I can understand the way you feel. But I don't think that there >> is a need to maintain the Heartbeat v1 bits separately. With >> Heartbeat 3.x you need to install in addition just the >> cluster-glue package (perhaps named differently in various >> distributions). > > what would that do? would it let us use v1 style configs where they are > suffient? I would personally be happy if it worked in a transparent way. > and sometimes such complexity is needed, but sometimes it's not. You nailed it. >> However, if you want to run a configuration comparable to v1, >> i.e. a simple active-passive or active-active setup, a Pacemaker >> cluster is quite manageable. Right now it has all the tools to >> make it much easier to manage than a haresources based cluster. >> Once you give it a try, you probably won't look back. > > the problem is that the learning curve has been made so steep that even people > who are familar with clusters (and earlier versions of heartbeat) have > problems > setting up these simple clusters. > > the fact that we are on day 2 or 3 of Igor's problem and can't even figure out > what's happening because the logs aren't showing anything is a very bad sign. Yep > I really don't want to have heartbeat fork, but as the project has grown new > features and then split off the resource management stuff, the difficulty in > getting the simple things working has been growing. Possibly, what is needed is a simple and bulletproof, to the extent possible, CRM that only handles a standard and simple situation. > most of us who didn't need that complexity just ignored it as long as the > haresources configs continued to work. > > at this point it seems like either the haresources configs need to be > un-depriciated and supported, or something else. but the current situation is > getting unreasonable. Sad to hear but likely true. _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
