Hi Ante,
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 06:03:10PM +0100, Ante Karamatić wrote:
> On 10.02.2010 17:26, Mathias Gug wrote:
>
> >If I understand correctly the following rhcs binary packages (GFS +
> >DLM) should be kept in main for the new cluster stack:
>
> This looks OK, but please wait till I create n
Hi Ante,
2010/2/7 Ante Karamatić :
> On 07.02.2010 19:01, Mathias Gug wrote:
>
>> I had a discussion with Fabio, the upstream redhat-cluster-suite
>> maintainer, and it seems that the stack corosync+openais+pacemaker is
>> not feature equivalent with the current redhat-cluster-suite.
>
> Btw, pace
On 07.02.2010 19:01, Mathias Gug wrote:
> I had a discussion with Fabio, the upstream redhat-cluster-suite
> maintainer, and it seems that the stack corosync+openais+pacemaker is
> not feature equivalent with the current redhat-cluster-suite.
Btw, pacemaker supports GFS2 and with RHCS 3.0.7 one c
On 07.02.2010 20:52, Mathias Gug wrote:
> If I understand correctly it's currently impossible to upgrade
> automatically from cman/rgmanager to the new stack. Fabio told me that
> there were plans to add support for the existing cman/rgman
> configuration syntax to the new components (pacemaker) b
Hi Ante,
2010/2/7 Ante Karamatić :
>
> Well, parts of cluster suite will be unmaintained. I doubt support for
> distributed lock manager or gfs2 will be dropped (and those are only
> things we need). Stuff that will go away are cman, rgmanager, etc...
>
Agreed - it's my understanding as well. DLM
On 07.02.2010 19:01, Mathias Gug wrote:
> I had a discussion with Fabio, the upstream redhat-cluster-suite
> maintainer, and it seems that the stack corosync+openais+pacemaker is
> not feature equivalent with the current redhat-cluster-suite. Moreover
> redhat-cluster-suite is currently updated to
Hi Ante,
2010/2/3 Ante Karamatić :
> On 04.01.2010 18:16, Mathias Gug wrote:
>
>> As part of the Server lucid seeds blueprint [1] I'd like to request your
>> feedback on whether redhat-cluster-suite should be demoted to universe.
>
> Do *NOT* demote it to universe. There are libraries (libdlm,
> l
On 04.01.2010 18:16, Mathias Gug wrote:
> As part of the Server lucid seeds blueprint [1] I'd like to request your
> feedback on whether redhat-cluster-suite should be demoted to universe.
Do *NOT* demote it to universe. There are libraries (libdlm,
libdlmcontrold) and maybe some binaries (gf2-t
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 06:59:04PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> "Mathias Gug" wrote:
>
> >Pros for universe demotion:
> > * extremely difficult to test
> > * earlier versions were very painful to get security updates applied
>
> I think these are better arguments for removal than demotion. I
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Mathias Gug wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As part of the Server lucid seeds blueprint [1] I'd like to request your
> feedback on whether redhat-cluster-suite should be demoted to universe.
>
> Pros for universe demotion:
> * extremely difficult to test
> * earlier versions we
"Mathias Gug" wrote:
>Pros for universe demotion:
> * extremely difficult to test
> * earlier versions were very painful to get security updates applied
I think these are better arguments for removal than demotion. If it's too hard
for Canonical to maintain, punting it to the community isn't
Hi,
As part of the Server lucid seeds blueprint [1] I'd like to request your
feedback on whether redhat-cluster-suite should be demoted to universe.
Pros for universe demotion:
* extremely difficult to test
* earlier versions were very painful to get security updates applied
Pros for keeping i
12 matches
Mail list logo
