[Pacemaker] Searching for a viable Debian solution

[Quentin Smith]

On Sat, 24 Apr 2010, Paul Gear wrote:

> On 24/04/10 15:05, Quentin Smith wrote:
>> Hi Paul,
>> 
>> Current clvm actually supports multiple locking schemes, including both
>> the old redhat cluster stack and modern corosync/openais. We use Ubuntu
>> Hardy with backported corosync and clvm packages, and it works pretty
>> well. Hand-backporting is not for the faint of heart, though.
>> 
>> --Quentin
>
> Thanks for the thoughts Quentin.  Would you mind sharing your current 
> versions (of clvm, corosync, openais, and pacemaker) and VM technology?

It's not currently in a good state for being deployed elsewhere, but you 
can look at http://invirt.mit.edu/. You can also steal our backports out 
of our apt repo at http://xvm.mit.edu/invirt/, but they obviously come 
with _no warranty_.

>
> I agree about hand-backporting - i'd be more inclined to run unstable than to 
> hand-backport.

It looks like semi-recent corosync is in sid - maybe it also has a recent 
clvm?

>
> Any ideas on whether LVs in the same VG can be used on different hosts 
> simultaneously with cLVM?

Yes, that is the whole premise of cLVM; LVs can be used by any number of 
hosts simultaneously. (Obviously, you need to make sure that if you mount 
the same LV from multiple places, that you're using a filesystem that can 
be mounted simultaneously such as OCFS).

--Quentin