[Pacemaker] known problem with corosync 1.4.1 on centos64 ?

[Andreas Mock]

Hi Andreas,

 

my two cents to your questions:

 

a) If you want to learn most, take any distro and compile the components
from

source and afterwards use them. => Most learned.

 

b) I don't know how others think about it: But I use a cluster to try to
increase uptime.

If I know that a disto's component is buggy causing failures while doing the
first steps

with a more or less standard config (corosync/pacemaker/drbd + some service)
I have

two choices when I have to stick to a distro's repos:

1) Take the next step distro
6.4 in your case. But it can have bugs too.

2) Ask why it is important to stick to the ditro's repos with a certain
software stack.

In your case I don't know why it is "allowed" to build drbd from source and
it's not

"allowed" to build the cluster stack from source. Especially while getting
the feet wet

with corosync/pacemaker and all the stuff is much more effort compared to
the effort

understanding, configuring and maintaining a cluster.

 

My policy is also to keep as close as possible to the distro's repos. But
when

I need a newer or more stable version of a software, I have to use it.

 

Best regards

Andreas

 

 

 

Von: andreas graeper [mailto:agraeper at googlemail.com] 
Gesendet: Freitag, 21. Juni 2013 15:00
An: The Pacemaker cluster resource manager
Betreff: Re: [Pacemaker] known problem with corosync 1.4.1 on centos64 ?

 

hi,

> old version : 

i shall maintain a centos63 with, except drbd (build from source), only
standard-repos are used.

for testing i installed newest centos64, but .. .

there is no chance to get rid of that centos63, but for learning/testing
what are the best distros ? not in general, but for use with
drbd+corosync+pacemaker. 

 

2013/6/21 Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb at suse.com>

On 2013-06-21T10:56:29, andreas graeper <agraeper at googlemail.com> wrote:

> hi,
> when only i remove or add resources, corosync starts to eat up all cpu.
> drbd 8.4.1 (build from source)
> corosync 1.4.1

yes, corosync 1.4.1 had one such error, I recall. If you're building
from source, why are you sticking to such an old version?


Regards,
    Lars

--
Architect Storage/HA
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer,
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde


_______________________________________________
Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker at oss.clusterlabs.org
http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker

Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/pacemaker/attachments/20130621/7ac9aef0/attachment.htm>