[Pacemaker] Alternative communication engine to corosync (etcd/consul/zookeeper/doozerd)

[Patrick Hemmer]

After the demise of the old heartbeat service, and the switch to
corosync as the primary (sole) method of communication between nodes,
has there ever been any consideration into using services such as etcd,
consul, zookeeper, or doozerd?

These alternative communication engines offer some stuff that corosync
doesn't. One such item etcd & consul offer is dynamic cluster scaling
capabilities (nodes can very easily join and leave the cluster). When
working in cloud computing, this feature becomes very important. Pcs is
somewhat helpful in this regard but it's still nowhere near as capable
(plus corosync doesn't have downscaling finished).
However one critical difference between these services and corosync is
that they are mainly key/value stores, and don't have something like
Corosync's CPG. Though you could probably implement something looking
like CPG using a keyvalue store, I think pacemaker might be able to use
a key/value store natively.

So, has this ever been considered? How heavily tied is pacemaker to the
corosync API? Could that be abstracted out enough to where different
communication engines could be implemented?


-Patrick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oss.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/pacemaker/attachments/20140620/77ca0eb3/attachment.html>