On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <l...@suse.com> wrote: > On 2012-03-16T11:28:36, Florian Haas <flor...@hastexo.com> wrote: > >> > is there a reason for integrating ceph with pacemaker? ceph does >> > internal monitoring of OSTs etc anyway, doesn't it? >> Assuming you're referring to OSDs, yes it does. It does automatic >> failover for MDSs (if you use them) and MONs too. But it currently has >> no means of recovering an osd/mds/mon daemon in place when it crashes, >> and that's what those RAs do. Really trivial. > > Yes, I need to stop calling them OSTs, but that's what object storage > targets were called before ceph came along ;-) Sorry. Yes, of course, I > mean OSDs. > > Would this not be more readily served by a simple while loop doing the > monitoring, even if systemd/upstart aren't around? Pacemaker is kind of > a heavy-weight here.
If you prefer to suggest a self-hacked while loop to your customers I'm not stopping you. >> The ocf:ceph:rbd RA by contrast serves an entirely different purpose, >> and I currently don't see how _that_ would be replaced by upstart or >> systemd. Unless either of those becomes so powerful (and >> cluster-aware) that we don't need Pacemaker at all anymore, but I >> don't see that happen anytime soon. > > Agreed. I was mostly curious about the server-side. Thanks for the > clarification. I forgot to add, if you actually want to use a ceph _filesystem_ as a cloned Pacemaker resource, ocf:heartbeat:Filesystem now has support for that too. But that was just a trivial three-line patch, so nothing new there. Florian -- Need help with High Availability? http://www.hastexo.com/now _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
