Hello again,

you might have noticed that the proposal on the pure virtualization 304
exam left some spare objectives on High Availability. Another outcome of a
lot of the discussions we've had around this was that we should keep High
Availability in LPIC-3 but consider making it an own exam.

Here is how a pure High Availability exam could be similar to:

  https://wiki.lpi.org/wiki/LPIC-305_Objectives_V3.0

The diff to 304v2 is here:


https://wiki.lpi.org/pubwiki/index.php?title=LPIC-305_Objectives_V3.0&type=revision&diff=&oldid=5138

Besides some small changes, mostly in the field of Pacemaker, you'll see
that we've added distributed storage to this exam. One might argue this is
again a rather arbitrary combination just like the old 304 exam; however,
storage is an important component of any HA stack and, in return, any
highly available storage requires certain HA measures. Feel free to discuss
this combination.

Please note that this draft is not complete yet, it *DOES NEED YOUR
FEEDBACK*. There are eight weights which are not assigned to a real
objective yet. I've parked them in the potential topic 'Backup and Disaster
Recovery', but I am not sure whether or not that is a good idea. My concern
is that there is not the 'one', most prominent tool in that area. Just take
backup as an example, what should we cover, Bacula, Bareos, Amanda,
BackupPC? And once you have touched Veeam+VMware, would you still prefer
the open source tools (this is no statement about my personal preferences,
btw)?

Where would you like these weights to be put? Remember, this will be a new
exam, so we can do ANYTHING we want :)

Finally, I would be interested in knowing you thoughts on the term SRE and
if we should try to leverage this buzzword's momentum for the new 305 exam.

Fabian

-- 
Fabian Thorns <[email protected]> GPG: F1426B12
Director of Certification Development, Linux Professional Institute
_______________________________________________
lpi-examdev mailing list
[email protected]
https://list.lpi.org/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev

Reply via email to