[Pacemaker] future of DLM

[Lentes, Bernd]

Lars wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > no matter which of the two i choose ?
>
> The question is - choose for what? Depending on what you want to do,
> there is no alternative.
>
> Basically, the only use case for OCFS2's internal DLM is if
> you want to
> use OCFS2 without Pacemaker/corosync/cman. For example on SLE HA, that
> is not generally supported (only for use with RAC).
>
> Both GFS2 (always) and OCFS2 (when integrated with Pacemaker) require
> fs/dlm. Same is true for cLVM2.
>
> If you want to use a DLM yourself, libdlm user-space also requires
> fs/dlm. OCFS2's DLM is special-purpose for, well, OCFS2.
>
> I'm sure Oracle will continue to maintain OCFS2's DLM too, but there's
> not so much choice as you think there is ;-)
>
>

Hi,

ok. I understand. So i have to choose fs/dlm, because i use OCFS2 with pacemaker.
And this is maintained ?

Bernd

Helmholtz Zentrum München
Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Gesundheit und Umwelt (GmbH)
Ingolstädter Landstr. 1
85764 Neuherberg
www.helmholtz-muenchen.de
Aufsichtsratsvorsitzende: MinDir´in Bärbel Brumme-Bothe
Geschäftsführer: Prof. Dr. Günther Wess und Dr. Nikolaus Blum
Registergericht: Amtsgericht München HRB 6466
USt-IdNr: DE 129521671