Lundgren, Andrew wrote: > It is very difficult to find relevant documentation for heartbeat 1/2. I just > finished configuring a heartbeat system and would not recommend it because of > the documentation. (They seem to have removed portions the heartbeat > documentation from the site.) > > Pacemaker is not a simple solution to configure either. I played briefly with > the RH clustering software. It does not directly support any FS type other > than the basic ext2/ext3, and wasn't happy with a lustre type. >
That might be simple to fix, if it is script-based. We submitted a patch aeons ago to the heartbeat guys to add 'ldiskfs' as a supported FS. As I recall, it was a one-line change. cliffw > -- > Andrew > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: lustre-discuss-boun...@lists.lustre.org [mailto:lustre-discuss- >> boun...@lists.lustre.org] On Behalf Of Carlos Santana >> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 11:42 AM >> To: lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org >> Subject: [Lustre-discuss] failover software - heartbeat >> >> Howdy, >> >> The lustre manual recommends heartbeat for handling failover. The >> pacemaker is successor of hearbeat version 2. So whats recommended - >> should we be using pacemaker or stick to hearbeat? >> >> - >> CS. >> _______________________________________________ >> Lustre-discuss mailing list >> Lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org >> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss > _______________________________________________ > Lustre-discuss mailing list > Lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org > http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list Lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
