Hi, On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 02:44:36PM -0700, David Lang wrote: > > haresources2cib.py is obsolete and probably produces a bad > > cib.xml. The recommended way is to create a configuration using > > the crm shell. > > Ok, so this means that there is officially no migration path for those of us > using a V1 sty;e config
haresources2cib had value once the XML was the only way to configure CRM. I think that converting haresources by hand doesn't take much effort anymore. It is also a good way to get acquainted with pacemaker and the crm shell. That was the reason haresource2cib was retired. > This is really starting to sound like we need to fork heartbeat back to the > 2.x or thereabouts when it could work for simple things easily. I can understand the way you feel. But I don't think that there is a need to maintain the Heartbeat v1 bits separately. With Heartbeat 3.x you need to install in addition just the cluster-glue package (perhaps named differently in various distributions). > does anyone have a good handle on where we should start and what bugs have > been > fixed since then (as opposed to new features added, components split out, > etc)? The mercurial repository is the ultimate source. > I've been watching things get more and more complicated over time, and I > recognise that to solve complex problems you sometimes need that complexity, > but > there are a LOT of problems that aren't that complex. Heartbeat has been > making > it harder and harder to do simple things, and with the difficulty in figuring > out what version 3.0.2 is doing that Igor is experiancing, and the inability > to > take a simple config and convert it to the new format, it is sounding like it > may be time to fork. I completely agree that increased complexity is a problem and particularly in HA solutions. And it is possible to create very complex configurations with Pacemaker, and at the same time make it hard (or impossible) for humans to understand what does the cluster do. However, if you want to run a configuration comparable to v1, i.e. a simple active-passive or active-active setup, a Pacemaker cluster is quite manageable. Right now it has all the tools to make it much easier to manage than a haresources based cluster. Once you give it a try, you probably won't look back. Thanks, Dejan > David Lang > _______________________________________________ > Linux-HA mailing list > Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha > See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
