On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Greg Woods <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 08:13 +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > >> > 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 > > > This addresses the fact that Pacemaker has many features that heartbeat > v1 lacks. That is not in dispute, but it completely sidesteps the point > that heartbeat v1 is sufficient for many uses and much easier to get > working. I have not said that heartbeat v1 is "better" than pacemaker, > only that it is easier to get working.
Are you including learning and configuring mon there too? Because seriously, if you're just using v1 - thats not a cluster, thats a prayer. > The question was asked "why would > anyone want to use heartbeat v1". Here is one valid answer to that > question. This point has been made on this list before by myself and > others, and yet the question "why would anyone want to use heartbeat v1" > continues to be asked. I understand that nobody has any interest in > developing heartbeat v1 any more. I accept this, I have moved on to v3 > and Pacemaker. But that does not invalidate the answer to the original > question. > > --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
