On 2013-03-15T09:54:22, Dimitri Maziuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've always had difficulties with the concept: the way I see it if your
> hardware fails you want *all* your 200+ services moved. If you want them
> independently moved to different places, you're likely better off with a
> full cloud solution. If you want them moved while hardware's still up
> you're probably looking for load balancing, not HA.
>
> I'm sure you can patch heartbeat to replace all hardcoded stuff with
> config file settings. Or use pacemaker's ability to manage service
> groups more or less independently. I'm not sure why you'd want to use
> either that way.
You're contradicting yourself ;-) Pacemaker in fact gives you the
management you suggest for the "cloud" use case - whether the services
are handled natively or encapsulated into a VM.
And the concept of HA clusters predates "the cloud" slightly.
Regards,
Lars
--
Architect Storage/HA
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB
21284 (AG Nürnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
