On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Bart Coninckx <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thursday 09 December 2010 22:21:57 Pavlos Parissis wrote:
>> On 9 December 2010 17:09, Igor Chudov <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Dimitri Maziuk <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> >> See "LRM operation WebSite_start_0 unknown error" from November, that's
>> >> where your pdf led me. By the time I hit "unknown error" starting drbd
>> >> resource -- set up exactly as you describe, I've spent close to a week
>> >> trying to replicate the setup that takes < an hour.
>> >
>> > Sadly, I had a similar experience.
>>
>> Well, I didn't have that experience.
>> I managed to set up a 3-node cluster with 2 DRBD resource and 2
>> resource groups which have several resources by following the doc that
>> is available on pacemaker and drbd.org sites.
>> Yes, I face few configurations issues at the begging but
>> pacemaker/linux-ha/drbd lists gave me enough support to continue.
>>
>> I come from SUN Clusters (3.1 back in 2003) and Redhat Cluster, and I
>> have to say that pacemaker is far better and has much better
>> functionality.
>> There are things I don't like either, log messages to difficult to
>> parse times and few other things.
>>
>> Last but not least, Cluster systems are not easy by definition and you
>> can't expect to follow a wizard and hit next next and get the cluster
>> up and running without understanding how it works.
>>
>> My 2 cents,
>> Pavlos
>> _______________________________________________
>> Linux-HA mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
>> See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
>
> I mostly concur on this.
> It all has a steep learning curve, log files are far from transparent
Hard to disagree.
There are primarily two problems with the logs:
1) They're too verbose, which means its easy for the relevant
information to be lost in the noise.
On the flip-side, it means bugs can be fixed the first time they
occur and don't need to be reproducible.
This was a big advantage early on, but now that the system is
generally mature we've slowly been trying to cut back on the amount we
log.
2) Many of the "errors" originate in the RAs and they don't always do
a good job of logging them
All Pacemaker gets is a return code, so "unknown error" is often
the only information it has.
> but the
> principles are quite clear to me and the possibilities are endless. It's the
> ultimate way to have an alternative for very expensive clustering solutions. I
> already built two HA setups were the storage is made out of two DRBD nodes
> offering iSCSI and several nodes which are HA Xen hypervisors. I'm no computer
> genius by any means, but the available docs were sufficient to help me along.
> I sometimes do wonder though if I haven't done anything wrong, which is not
> always apparent until it goes wrong.
>
> As to the original question for a alternative, personally I tend to suspect
> that his question is only partially about having an alternative but mostly
> about venting some frustration (which I can understand, I've had it too at
> times) and challenging the developers a bit. Nevertheless, I don't know of a
> lot of alternatives and the reason might be that usually alternatives arise
> when a lot of people need something and that they are not happy with what IS
> available. Since a lot of people need clustering, my conclusion is that this
> must simply be very adequate stuff.
>
> B.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
