On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Dimitri Maziuk <[email protected]> wrote: > Serge Dubrouski wrote: > >> 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. > > I have to say, if it takes "less than a week" to set up a cluster when > you already know how to do it... I suspect it'll take me "less than a > week" to have a working clone of heartbeat v1 -- and that's without > doing any programming. I mean, how hard can it be to have set up mon to > ping the other node and fire up a few scripts when it stops responding. > > Let's face it: a 2-node active/passive cluster on xover (or serial) > cable can only really guard against hardware failure. In which case 99% > of the time you don't need to care about split brain and everything that > comes with that.
Ok. Please let's stop this useless holywar and try to help to solve the original problem: why PostgreSQL doesn't want to start on Heartbeat v1. I personally have no idea since I've never used Heartbeat v1 and not going to. > > Dima > -- > Dimitri Maziuk > Programmer/sysadmin > BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu > _______________________________________________ > 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
