26.03.2015 19:19, Christine Caulfield wrote:
On 26/03/15 10:36, Christine Caulfield wrote:
On 25/03/15 01:24, Steven Dake wrote:
I think if you dont care about performance, you can have a daemon
process (second process) connect as a cpg service and maintain an
overlay network on top of CPG. Then many other external endpoints could
connect to this server over TCP.
That's an interesting idea that I quite like. And it might be nice and
easy to get a proof-of-concept up and running.
It would probably require a different API to the normal corosync one
(I'm not sure that emulating libcpg etc for a different daemon would be
sensible).
How does that sound to the Pacemaker team?
I've been thinking about Steven Dake's idea most of today and I really
like it. It's clean, doesn't interfere with corosync internals and will
be easier to implement and maintain. Also it won't break the on-wire
protocol.
Does it allow to use dlm/gfs2/clvm on satellite nodes?
The one main drawback I see is that the CPG membership will not include
the satellite nodes (unless the parent joins the CPG once for each
parent, which seems excessive). Looking at the pacemaker code this
doesn't seem to be a problem. We can still send node up/down
notifications if needed, even if a satellite joins the cluster, it would
just show the same list of central nodes each time.
I'm less worried about the performance hit for this sort of
implementation though it does need to be borne in mind. I'll forward an
updated document early next week for perusal if David or Andrew chip in
about Pacemaker requirements above.
thoughts?
Chrissie
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
