On 2011-11-07 23:49, Nick Khamis wrote: > Hello Florian, > > Thank you so much for your response. > >>> I must confess I've lost track (and count) of all the threads you've >>> opened here on this list and others. > > I'm not sure if you're referring to this run-time error or previous > ones, and frankly I am not > sure how this is relevant. > > We are only using Debian for the prototype, and could be moving to any > *nix based system, and for this reason we are building everything from source. > We should in theory be able to do this.... So no backport or distro patched > version would work. > >>> As for time pressure, I believe several people on this list have >>> informed you about various options to get professional assistance on >>> this, so I'll not rehash those here. > > Thanks. We're just looking to help ourselves and others compile and run, > pcmk+corosync using cman's standard dlm on an ocfs2 filesystem. > All built from source. > > Think about it, you're ridiculing us for helping in ironing out the bugs.
Excuse me? OK, everyone has a right to be offended. So I'll not make any statement as to the alleged ridicule. That said, and I deliberately put it this bluntly, grow some thicker skin. In what you do (build everything from source, selecting versions of your own choosing, and in the case of Pacemaker even building straight out of git HEAD), you are effectively trying to duplicate the work of a distribution. Surely you're agreeing with me that the integrated effort required for such an undertaking is quite substantial. Therefore, I find it a bit surprising that you are doing this, when you could be using a stack provided by a specific distribution, or by a specific specialized vendor. As for your runtime errors -- I have no idea what QE/QA you run. I don't have a clue what GCC you're building with, I don't even know what configure options you set. For all I know, your build system could be perfect -- or it could be riddled with faults and problems that would easily explain all runtime errors you've run into, and then some. I just don't know. For distro packages, I'd know that your binary was built in the same environment as my binary. Thus, if you ran into an error with that package, I should be able to reproduce it. Reproducing problems in packages you rolled from source, not even released, with unknown configuration? I don't have a snowball's chance in hell. I'm also a bit baffled by your apparent requirement to be able to put this "on any *nix based system" -- rest assured, getting this stack to run on Solaris is a much bigger challenge than it is on Linux. In fact, I don't know if anyone regularly builds and tests Pacemaker on anything but Linux (except Andrew, who builds on Mac OS X, but I doubt he'd recommend that platform for production use). Finally, even though you have asked here multiple times about dual-Primary DRBD, OCFS2, DLM, CMAN and friends, the only explanation for _why_ you want this setup that I've found on the list is that you want it for shared configuration files. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what you said in an email that was apparently inadvertently posted to this list, on Oct 25.) And if that's your sole reason for wanting a cluster file system, then sorry, that's a terrible idea. And Andreas even told you so. You could have solved this with NFS, or Csync2, or even rsync two weeks ago. > Please, now for an answer we could use. Hope the above helps. Then again, like I said, you already got an answer I humbly suggest you should have used. If you're asking for help, you get it, choose to ignore it, then scramble, and then complain when someone calls it out, again: you have the right to be offended. Florian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
