Hi Andrew, Thank you for comment.
> I doubt it, I think development on heartbeat is at an end and > maintenance is limited to regressions. We understand it enough. However, it is very difficult for us to wait for corosync to be stable. > But maybe lge would like to comment further. Well. Let's wait for more comment..... Best Regards, --- Andrew Beekhof <and...@beekhof.net> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 3:20 AM, <renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp> wrote: > > Hi Developers of Heartbeat, > > > > When we combined Pacemaker with Heartbeat, we understand that Quorum > > control does not work > well. > > > > For example, it occurs when a cluster consisted of plural nodes when I set > > it besides > > no-quorum-policy=ignore. > > > > We know that this is considerably always the problem that was already known. > > > > The problem occurs by the difference of the timing of the detection when a > > node was divided. > > > > We think that there is the problem in Heartbeat. > > �* There may be the problem in CCM. > > �* Because the reason is because the problem does not occur when it > > combined Pacemaker with > corosync > > to notify of node division definitely. > > > > Our many users are going to use the Quorum control in Heartbeat. > > > > Heartbeat has to notify pacemaker of a change of right node constitution > > like corosync. > > > > Is there the plan when Quorum control of Heartbeat becomes right? > > I doubt it, I think development on heartbeat is at an end and > maintenance is limited to regressions. > But maybe lge would like to comment further. > _______________________________________________________ > Linux-HA-Dev: Linux-HA-Dev@lists.linux-ha.org > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev > Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/ > _______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: Linux-HA-Dev@lists.linux-ha.org http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
