Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-users] Proposing to previous ganesha HA cluster solution back to gluster code as gluster-7 feature

IMO, you should keep storhaug and maintain it. At the beginning, we were with pacemaker and corosync. Then we move to storhaug with the upgrade to gluster 4.1.x. Now you are talking about going back like it was. Maybe it will be better with pacemake and corosync but the important is to have a

Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-users] Proposing to previous ganesha HA cluster solution back to gluster code as gluster-7 feature

+1! I'm using nfs-ganesha in my next upgrade so my client systems can use NFS instead of fuse mounts. Having an integrated, designed in process to coordinate multiple nodes into an HA cluster will very welcome. On April 30, 2019 3:20:11 AM EDT, Jiffin Tony Thottan wrote: >Hi all, > >Some of

Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-users] Proposing to previous ganesha HA cluster solution back to gluster code as gluster-7 feature

On 30/04/19 6:41 PM, Renaud Fortier wrote: IMO, you should keep storhaug and maintain it. At the beginning, we were with pacemaker and corosync. Then we move to storhaug with the upgrade to gluster 4.1.x. Now you are talking about going back like it was. Maybe it will be better with