On Wednesday 11 August 2010 18:26, Greg Woods wrote: > On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 17:13 -0500, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: > > > So is it not practical to run RHEL or CentOS 5.x where you'd get this > > > version and several more years of disto maintenance? > > > > It's not practical if you want to have both distro maintenance or cluster > > support. > > I run CentOS 5.5, and there are maintained RPMs in the clusterlabs repo: > > http://www.clusterlabs.org/rpm/epel-5 > > I am running heartbeat 3.0.2 and I notice they have a 3.0.3 now.
0) Part of the 'E' in RHEL is that they will stay with 3.0.stable for years and (presumably) only update to 3.0.x after much testing. Which leads to 1) there are installations where throwing in a package from 3rd party repo will cost you a lot. Like tech. support on a very very expensive piece of hardware. (Think giant hardon collider type of hardware.) The other issue with packages from 3rd party repos is, of course 2) so how many times did you have to unfsck yum update conflicts so far? 'Cause I have one machine here with tomcat6 from jpackage and I get to manually fix dependencies ~30% of the time. And that's nowhere near as bad as some audio & video stuff I have on my laptop. That aside, the real problem for me is I haven't seen V2-style docs that actually made sense yet. E.g. IIRC last I tried following HA-DRBD from centos wiki (sic) I got "your cib.xml doesn't match my dtd" or something along those lines from cibadmin. Obsolete deprecated V1-style HA-NFS docs, OTOH, work and get me to a working cluster in the amount of time I can afford to spend on setting it up. Dima -- Dimitri Maziuk Programmer/sysadmin BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu _______________________________________________ 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
