On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Greg Woods <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
I see you could do it and now you are going to use Pacemaker "all the time in the future". Than I see no reason why other can't do it as well taking into account that Heartbeat v1 almost not supported and definitely has no future unless somebody will decide to fork it out of the current project and start a new one independent of Pacemaker. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-HA mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha > See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems > -- Serge Dubrouski. _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
