hi, On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:15:29AM -0500, Alberto Alonso wrote: > On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 16:26 +0100, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > > On 2013-03-14T09:44:11, "GGS (linux ha)" <support-linu...@ggsys.net> wrote: > > > > That's fine. But the cluster software really assumes that only one > > instance of it is running per server - said instance can then manage > > multiple software stacks, though. > > Got it. That's what I was asking. > > > > No. Pacemaker allows resources and groups (probably the equivalent of > > your "stacks") to be individually managed. > > > > If you want to bring down pacemaker itself for maintenance, you'd detach > > via maintenance mode, stop, update, restart, reattach. > > I'll have to dig in deeper, it may be a possibility. We really > would like to move away from the in-house built solution. > > > > But there is a point where this matters, namely IO fencing/STONITH. In > > case of a real server failure, you don't want 200+ independent fencing > > processes to trigger. > > Believe it or not, I would actually rather have the 200+ > fencing processes to trigger. But that is not a > requirement. I just need to ensure failover completes > within the allowed time. > > > > > Yes. That's called multitasking/virtualization/cloud. We get that. ;-) > > Multitasking yes, virtualization no, that's another discussion :-) > > > > But just like you only have "one kernel" per physical server, you also > > only have one cluster stack that then manages multiple stacks. We even > > got ACLs so that you can grant people access to only the bits they're > > allowed to manage, etc. > > > > What you plan - running multiple heartbeat v1 setups on one node - will > > not work reliably. Running multiple pacemaker instances per node/OS > > image will not work either. > > That's what I thought. The emails from 2009 seemed to indicate > that it was possible to run multiple instances. > > I asked because I suspected that it really wasn't the case. Thanks > for confirming it. I'll dig deeper into pacemaker and see how I > can make it work for our use case. > > One quick question on pacemaker. If I add a new stack, do I need > to bring the old ones down (or fail them) to add it to pacemaker?
No. Thanks, Dejan > >From your comment above it seems that I wouldn't, but I just want > to make sure. > > Thanks, > > Alberto > > > > > > > > Regards, > > Lars > > > -- > Alberto Alonso Global Gate Systems LLC. > (512) 351-7233 http://www.ggsys.net > Monitoring the metrics that are important to you in real time > > _______________________________________________ > 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
