On 03/15/2013 10:08 AM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > You're contradicting yourself ;-) Pacemaker in fact gives you the > management you suggest for the "cloud" use case - whether the services > are handled natively or encapsulated into a VM.
Yeah, I suppose. I meant going Open/CloudStack. (We get to write buzzword-compliant funding proposals, or I don't get to eat. So my perspective is skewed towards the hottest shiny du jour...) > And the concept of HA clusters predates "the cloud" slightly. Relevant if you're looking at maintenance/upgrade on an existing cluster. Patching heartbeat to manage 200 services independently sounds like a new project. -- Dimitri Maziuk Programmer/sysadmin BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ 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
