On Fri, 2013-03-15 at 11:43 -0500, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: > On 03/15/2013 10:08 AM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > > > You're contradicting yourself ;-) Pacemaker in fact gives you the > > management you suggest for the "cloud" use case - whether the > services > > are handled natively or encapsulated into a VM. > > Yeah, I suppose. I meant going Open/CloudStack. > (We get to write buzzword-compliant funding proposals, or I don't get > to > eat. So my perspective is skewed towards the hottest shiny du jour...)
These projects do not relate well to full VMs, so it is actually not a good direction. But yes, we do use the load balancer and VMs approach for other things, so I am familiar with that type of architecture. > > > And the concept of HA clusters predates "the cloud" slightly. > > Relevant if you're looking at maintenance/upgrade on an existing > cluster. Patching heartbeat to manage 200 services independently > sounds > like a new project. The current solution was written in-house. We are looking to replace it. Based on the info from the list heartbeat is out, so I'll look more into pacemaker. I know what you mean about the buzzwords. I'm trying to avoid them. :-) Alberto _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
