On 11/19/2010 02:17 AM, Pieter Baele wrote:
Hi, Has anyone experience or made a comparison between these different clustering products? We are evaluating Linux cluster solutions, I've too say Veritas is very very complete (but closed source and expensive....!) If anyone has some recommandations or tips, especially for RH Cluster, please share them. What's the future direction of RH: Will pacemaker become default or will it only be include in RH 6 as an alternative?
I used HA Linux some years ago and was never happy with it, so I switched to RHCS. Building and maintaining clusters in it is, I find, much better. Now with that said, I've not gone back since Pacemaker was introduced, and I know a lot of people love Pacemaker now. I do plan to try it again before too long.
In general though, Radu said, RHCS has a central configuration in /etc/cluster/cluster.conf. I *love* that. With that though comes limitations. If you want fairly simple fail-over and recovery options, rgmanager is great. If you want very complex configurations though, Pacemaker is more flexible and.
In my mind, Pacemaker and RHCS are equally good, just different. Both use corosync and that's where all the magic happens.
-- Digimer E-Mail: digimer@xxxxxxxxxxx AN!Whitepapers: http://alteeve.com Node Assassin: http://nodeassassin.org -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
