On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 6:44 PM, 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?
I dispute that: http://theclusterguy.clusterlabs.org/post/178680309/configuring-heartbeat-v1-was-so-simple > 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 > _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
