[Pacemaker] future of DLM

[Michael Schwartzkopff]

Am Freitag, 1. März 2013, 11:20:09 schrieb 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 ?

Yes. SUSE even sells support for it.

-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Michael Schwartzkopff

-- 
[*] sys4 AG

http://sys4.de, +49 (89) 30 90 46 64
Franziskanerstraße 15, 81669 München

Sitz der Gesellschaft: München, Amtsgericht München: HRB 199263
Vorstand: Patrick Ben Koetter, Axel von der Ohe, Marc Schiffbauer
Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Joerg Heidrich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/pacemaker/attachments/20130301/1704d610/attachment.htm>