On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 10:01 -0600, Serge Dubrouski wrote: > Any particular reason for using Heartbeat v1 instead of CRM/Pacemaker?
Um, maybe because heartbeat v1 has a much much much much less steep learning curve? If you have a simple two-node cluster where one node is just a hot spare, it is way way way way easier to get it working with heartbeat v1. The first time I ever set up a high availability cluster, going in knowing nothing at all about it, I had a heartbeat v1 cluster working in a couple of days. Already having had considerable heartbeat v1 experience, it took me a couple of months to get a cluster working under heartbeat v3/Pacemaker. The pace of development is also high enough that the documentation often lags behind reality. That is not a criticism, I know how hard it is to keep the documentation up to date (I am already in that mode now with these new clusters; nobody else knows how they work so I can't even take a vacation now that I have some production services running on them, until I finish writing up some administration procedures). Yes, no doubt a Pacemaker cluster is far more flexible, but when one doesn't need all that flexibility and just wants a simple two-node HA cluster, the simplicity of heartbeat v1 is very attractive. This shouldn't be a big a mystery as it seems to be. Face up to it: learning and properly configuring Pacemaker is HARD, even for experienced sysadmins. And unless you need the additional flexibility that Pacemaker offers, it seems like a lot of extra effort. Will I use Pacemaker all the time in the future? Yes, because I have already put in the effort to learn and configure it. Setting up a new cluster, where I had an existing one to use as a template, took less than a week. But that first time, it was difficult, time consuming, and often frustrating. --Greg _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
