> [...] > > Pacemaker is *the* Linux HA Stack. > [...] > > Can you expand on this assertion? It doesn't look to me like it's > part of the Linux source tree and I see strong evidence to suggest > it's released and distributed completely separately from the kernel. If you read "Linux" as "GNU/Linux" or "Linux platform", instead of "Linux kernel", it's what I meant.
> Statements like this one make the rest of your messages look even > more like a marketing campaign, so I'd love to understand what you > really mean (I seriously doubt you're campaigning for this specific > piece of software, after all, but that's the way it comes across). Sorry for not being entirely clear. I thought that my message was good enough, as the OpenStack documentation itself already talks about Pacemaker: http://docs.openstack.org/high-availability-guide/content/ch-pacemaker.html "OpenStack infrastructure high availability relies on the Pacemaker cluster stack, the state-of-the-art high availability and load balancing stack for the Linux platform. Pacemaker is storage and application-agnostic, and is in no way specific to OpenStack." Expanding on "what we have", "what GNU/Linux already has", and "what is being used for Linux (platform) HA", I wanted to point out that most of the parts for _one_ possible solution already exists. Whether we want to go *that* route is yet to be decided, of course. __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev