Hi Bernd, Apart from Ken's insights.
I try to put it simple between systemd vs. pacemaker: pacemaker does manage dependencies among nodes, well, systemd just not. Cheers, Roger On 10/16/19 5:16 AM, Ken Gaillot wrote: > On Tue, 2019-10-15 at 21:35 +0200, Lentes, Bernd wrote: >> Hi, >> >> i'm a big fan of simple solutions (KISS). >> Currently i have DLM, cLVM, GFS2 and OCFS2 managed by pacemaker. >> They all are fundamental prerequisites for my resources (Virtual >> Domains). >> To configure them i used clones and groups. >> Why not having them managed by systemd to make the cluster setup more >> overseeable ? >> >> Is there a strong reason that pacemaker cares about them ? >> >> Bernd > > Either approach is reasonable. The advantages of keeping them in > pacemaker are: > > - Service-aware recurring monitor (if OCF) > > - If one of those components fails, pacemaker will know to try to > recover everything in the group from that point, and if necessary, > fence the node and recover the virtual domain elsewhere (if they're in > systemd, pacemaker will only know that the virtual domain has failed, > and likely keep trying to restart it fruitlessly) > > - Convenience of things like putting a node in standby mode, and > checking resource status on all nodes with one command > > If you do move them to systemd, be sure to use the resource-agents-deps > target to ensure they're started before pacemaker and stopped after > pacemaker. > _______________________________________________ Manage your subscription: https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/