Bug#738704: [Debian-ha-maintainers] Bug#738704: closed by wf...@niif.hu (Ferenc Wágner) (Re: pacemaker: Segfault in libhbclient.so.1.0.0)

[Philipp Marek]

> > I'd just like to know why Heartbeat support isn't included anymore... yes, 
> > it won't do OCFS2 or GFS2, but in exchange it has been rock-solid for me.
> 
> Ah, I see.  No principal reason, just lack of manpower.  I'll be happy
> if we can properly maintain a single stack; we're not there yet.  What's
> the upstream status of Heartbeat, anyway?  Internet suggest it's
> deprecated and no longer developed, but maintained by Linbit.  Can you
> provide an update on that? 
Well, we won't provide any new features - but yes, we're still using it, 
and provide our customers with a Pacemaker/Heartbeat stack (and 
a Pacemaker/Corosync one, too).

We also fix Pacemaker if support for Heartbeat is broken in there.


> Also, if you can bring Heartbeat expertise
> into the Debian HA team, I've got nothing against compiling support into
> Pacemaker.
Well, we hope to generate some money from our support...
so I can't just say "we'll fix everything for free".

But if redirecting people to (possibly paid-for) support is okay, I guess 
we'd be the right destination for such questions...


Regards,

Phil

Bug#738704: [Debian-ha-maintainers] Bug#738704: closed by wf...@niif.hu (Ferenc Wágner) (Re: pacemaker: Segfault in libhbclient.so.1.0.0)

[Ferenc Wágner]

Philipp Marek  writes:

> I'd just like to know why Heartbeat support isn't included anymore... yes, 
> it won't do OCFS2 or GFS2, but in exchange it has been rock-solid for me.

Ah, I see.  No principal reason, just lack of manpower.  I'll be happy
if we can properly maintain a single stack; we're not there yet.  What's
the upstream status of Heartbeat, anyway?  Internet suggest it's
deprecated and no longer developed, but maintained by Linbit.  Can you
provide an update on that?  Also, if you can bring Heartbeat expertise
into the Debian HA team, I've got nothing against compiling support into
Pacemaker.
-- 
Thanks,
Feri.

Bug#738704: [Debian-ha-maintainers] Bug#738704: closed by wf...@niif.hu (Ferenc Wágner) (Re: pacemaker: Segfault in libhbclient.so.1.0.0)

[Philipp Marek]

Hi Ferenc,

> >> Pacemaker isn't built with Heartbeat support anymore.  I recommend to
> >> migrate to Corosync 2.
> >
> > That's too bad, because
> >
> >>> I'm using 4 physical network interfaces, so corosync won't do.
> 
> Do you mean that Corosync won't let you use independent links for
> heartbeat and cluster communication?  I think the usual recommendation
> is to bond them, but Corosync also supports this natively under the name
> RRP (redundant ring protocol).  Why doesn't this work for you?
Well, I like to distribute my cluster (and other replication traffic) among 
multiple interfaces.

Yes, of course I can use bonding; and yes, Corosync supports 2 rings.


I'd just like to know why Heartbeat support isn't included anymore... yes, 
it won't do OCFS2 or GFS2, but in exchange it has been rock-solid for me.

Bug#738704: [Debian-ha-maintainers] Bug#738704: closed by wf...@niif.hu (Ferenc Wágner) (Re: pacemaker: Segfault in libhbclient.so.1.0.0)

[Ferenc Wágner]

Philipp Marek  writes:

>> Pacemaker isn't built with Heartbeat support anymore.  I recommend to
>> migrate to Corosync 2.
>
> That's too bad, because
>
>>> I'm using 4 physical network interfaces, so corosync won't do.

Do you mean that Corosync won't let you use independent links for
heartbeat and cluster communication?  I think the usual recommendation
is to bond them, but Corosync also supports this natively under the name
RRP (redundant ring protocol).  Why doesn't this work for you?
-- 
Regards,
Feri.