<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
On 05/22/2012 03:30 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAEDLWG0b+JySNrRGKB2NrUNXnbtSjoE7ieA8ZFnjPbK_a22vMA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">We were talking about GFS2 and Pacemaker but the same applies to OCFS2.
If you're just using ocfs2 there is no need for cman. But if you want
ocfs2 <i class="moz-txt-slash"><span class="moz-txt-tag">/</span>and<span class="moz-txt-tag">/</span></i> a cluster manager - you want them all using the same
membership and quorum data.
<span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span></pre>
</blockquote>
Yes, I remember reading that. In my situation, I am torn between
what works now and what "will" work tomorrow. My current choice of
distro has some interesting...irregularities, shall we say? Not to
throw myself into the middle of a "get a real distro" holy war,
but: one release has working Corosync/Pacemaker but doesn't seem to
support cman integration (even though it carries the packages for
it), while a later release supports cman and (apparently) not
corosync/pacemaker alone, but pacemaker dies a horrible death when I
put nodes into standby (not necessarily cman-related, I realize).
Part of me wants to just build the whole stack from the sources and
get exactly what I want, while other part wants to save myself the
angst, time, and human-error of doing such a thing, and make the
provided packages work.<br>
<br>
I am probably trying too hard to future-proof, and either need to
stick with what works now, switch distributions or work harder to
solve the outstanding problems of the latest distro release's
cluster packages.<br>
<br>
Anyway, thanks for the info - it is most happily received! <br>
-- Matthew<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>