On Thu, 19 Sep 2013, Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote:
On 09/19/2013 11:54 AM, David Lang wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013, Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote:
If you are running only a pool of VIPs, with no fencing, then you want
to consider making your life simpler with keepalived instead of
pcmk+corosync.
Thanks, I'll look into it. for all these two machine clusters, what I
really want to use is heartbeat with v1 style configs, they were really
trivial to deal with (I've had that on 100+ clusters, some going back to
heartbeat 0.4 days :-)
But since that's no longer an option, I figured it was time to bite the
bullet and move to pacemaker, and since RHEL is pushing
pacemaker/corosync, that's what we setup.
Well based on what you tell me, there is little need for a "real"
cluster but rather use and deploy something even simpler such as keepalived.
Here corosync/pcmk seems "too much" to deploy for moving a few IP arounds.
But then again, feel free to test and try whatever you like best :)
Pacemaker is already the 'simple' solution, the 'company standard' is to use
F5 appliances (using both global and local load balancing in all cases) or
Veritas for failover. Getting them to even consider Pacemaker was a huge uphill
fight. :-/
David Lang
_______________________________________________
Openais mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openais
