Re: [ClusterLabs] Pacemake/Corosync good fit for embedded product?

David, Hi, We are planning on creating a HA product in an active/standby configuration whereby the standby unit needs to take over from the active unit very fast (<50ms including all services restored). We are able to do very fast signaling (say 1000Hz) between the two units to detect

Re: [ClusterLabs] Possible idea for 2.0.0: renaming the Pacemaker daemons

On 04/11/2018 01:14 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:42 AM, Ken Gaillot > wrote: > > On Tue, 2018-04-10 at 08:50 +0200, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 00:54:01 +0200 > > Jan Pokorný

Re: [ClusterLabs] Pacemake/Corosync good fit for embedded product?

On 04/11/2018 10:44 AM, Jan Friesse wrote: > David, > >> Hi, >> >> We are planning on creating a HA product in an active/standby >> configuration >> whereby the standby unit needs to take over from the active unit very >> fast >> (<50ms including all services restored). >> >> We are able to do

Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: Possible idea for 2.0.0: renaming the Pacemaker daemons

On Wed, 2018-04-11 at 08:49 +0200, Ulrich Windl wrote: > > > > Ken Gaillot schrieb am 09.04.2018 um > > > > 19:10 in Nachricht > > <1523293841.5734.7.ca...@redhat.com>: > > Based on the list discussion and feedback I could coax out of > > others, I > > will change the

Re: [ClusterLabs] Possible idea for 2.0.0: renaming the Pacemaker daemons

On 11/04/18 15:24 +0200, Klaus Wenninger wrote: > On 04/11/2018 01:14 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >> you know... I wouldn't be opposed to running two copies (one for >> config, one for status) and having the crmd combine the two before >> sending to the PE. i've toyed with the idea in the past to

Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: Possible idea for 2.0.0: renaming the Pacemaker daemons

On 11/04/18 11:03 -0500, Ken Gaillot wrote: > On Wed, 2018-04-11 at 08:49 +0200, Ulrich Windl wrote: > Ken Gaillot schrieb am 09.04.2018 um > 19:10 in Nachricht >>> I had planned to use the "pcmk-" prefix, but I kept thinking about >>> the goal of making things more

[ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: Possible idea for 2.0.0: renaming the Pacemaker daemons

>>> Ken Gaillot schrieb am 09.04.2018 um 19:10 in >>> Nachricht <1523293841.5734.7.ca...@redhat.com>: > Based on the list discussion and feedback I could coax out of others, I > will change the Pacemaker daemon names, including the log tags, for > 2.0.0-rc3. > > I will add

Re: [ClusterLabs] Could we use pacemaker configure two master/slave resources?

On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 06:20:24 + 范国腾 wrote: ... > So there will be two resources（pgsql and gfs）to be master/slave module and > we hope their master are always in the same node. If switchover happens and > we hope the pgsql and gfs switchover at the same time. I would

Re: [ClusterLabs] Pacemake/Corosync good fit for embedded product?

Thanks Guys, Ideally I would like to have event driven (rather than slower polled) inputs into pacemaker to quickly trigger the fall over. I assume adding event driven inputs to pacemaker isn't straightforward? If it was possible to add event inputs to pacemaker is pacemaker itself fast enough?