Hello, On 02/03/2012 09:29 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Hi Andreas , > thanks for your response, but two questions : > 1/ why going with GFS2 ? because you know that ocfs2+pacemaker still does > not > work fine on rhel ? or ... ?
Because GFS2 is actively developed mostly by Redhat including the parts needed to glue it to Pacemaker and there have been some threads on the Pacemaker ML. I know it works with SLES11 SP1 with the packages shipped in the HA extension and also latest Debian/Ubuntu Packages should work. > 2/ you're right GFS2 is working much better with pacemaker than OCFS2, but > the problem > is that GFS2 was about 10 times less efficient with regard to IO > benchs than OCFS2 ! Never compared them by myself, I try to avoid using cluster file systems. What is your use case? > Is this status has changed since 2010 ? I dont' think so when watching > all the messages > on Mailing List ... but I'm not sure .. I have the same impression, yes. Regards, Andreas > Thanks > Alain > > > > De : Andreas Kurz <[email protected]> > A : [email protected] > Date : 02/02/2012 15:47 > Objet : Re: [Linux-HA] Status about ocfs2.pcmk ? > Envoyé par : [email protected] > > > > On 02/02/2012 02:54 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> Hi >> >> Just wonder if someone has succeded to configured a working HA >> configuration with Pacemaker/corosync >> and OCFS2 file systems, meaning using ocfs2.pcmk , on RHEL6 mainly (and >> eventually SLES11) ? > > For RHEL6 I'd recommend you go with GFS2 and follow the Cluster from > Scratch documentation ... I know OCFS2 on SLES11 SP1 is working fine in > a Pacemaker cluster. > > Regards, > Andreas > -- Need help with Pacemaker? http://www.hastexo.com/now
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
