Hi Andreas ,
thanks for your response, but two questions :
1/ why going with GFS2 ? because you know that ocfs2+pacemaker still does
not
work fine on rhel ? or ... ?
2/ you're right GFS2 is working much better with pacemaker than OCFS2, but
the problem
is that GFS2 was about 10 times less efficient with regard to IO
benchs than OCFS2 !
Is this status has changed since 2010 ? I dont' think so when watching
all the messages
on Mailing List ... but I'm not sure ...
Thanks
Alain
De : Andreas Kurz <[email protected]>
A : [email protected]
Date : 02/02/2012 15:47
Objet : Re: [Linux-HA] Status about ocfs2.pcmk ?
Envoyé par : [email protected]
On 02/02/2012 02:54 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> Hi
>
> Just wonder if someone has succeded to configured a working HA
> configuration with Pacemaker/corosync
> and OCFS2 file systems, meaning using ocfs2.pcmk , on RHEL6 mainly (and
> eventually SLES11) ?
For RHEL6 I'd recommend you go with GFS2 and follow the Cluster from
Scratch documentation ... I know OCFS2 on SLES11 SP1 is working fine in
a Pacemaker cluster.
Regards,
Andreas
--
Need help with Pacemaker?
http://www.hastexo.com/now
>
> (I tried at the end of 2010 but gave up after a few weeks because it was
> not working at all)
>
> Thanks if someone can give a status?
> Regards
> Alain Moullé
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-HA mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
> See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
[pièce jointe "signature.asc" supprimée par Alain Moulle/FR/BULL]
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
