[Pacemaker] heartbeat vs. corosync installation confusion

Andrew Beekhof andrew at beekhof.net
Wed Mar 9 04:52:30 EST 2011

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Lars Ellenberg
<lars.ellenberg at linbit.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 09:14:47AM +0100, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
>> <dennisml at conversis.de> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > I'm planning to setup a redundant storage system using centos5, pacemaker,
>> > corosync, drbd, nfs and I'm wondering about the status of heartbeat vs.
>> > corosync when it comes to the installation of the pacemaker subsystem of the
>> > setup.
>> >
>> > From what I've learned lurking on the ML heartbeat is considered a "legacy"
>> > part of the stack that is supposed to be replaced by corosync so my plan is
>> > since this is a new setup to not bother with heartbeat and go straight for
>> > the new corosync route. When I install pacemaker though (using the
>> > clusterlabs rpms) it seems to not only pull in heartbeat automatically but
>> > also enable its init script by default. Is this intended?
>> > Can I safely disable the heartbeat init script when using corosync?
>> yes
>> >
>> > Why am I required to install heartbeat when I want to use corosync in its
>> > place?
>> because it was built against both, and pulling in the libraries also
>> pulls in the main package.
>> not exactly optimal :(
> I think that dependency nonsense has been fixed with more recent
> heartbeat packages.

Alas its the OneTrueWay(tm) for Fedora.

More information about the Pacemaker mailing list