Heya, I think that you shoud definitely use Conga to create your initial configuratin files and test the cluster. It's easy and helpfull,... later you can edit them and also use command line, scripts,... and so on. Take a look at this small article to see what Conga provides, and also it's architecture: http://magazine.redhat.com/2007/03/19/teaching-your-cluster-and-storage-systems-to-dance-an-introduction-to-conga/ more info here: http://www.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/5.4/html/Cluster_Suite_Overview/s1-clumgmttools-overview-CSO.html#s2-conga-overview-CSO you can try creating a resource and see if you like it. "... shared resources to be used by high-availability services,... consist of file systems, IP addresses, NFS mounts and exports, and user-created scripts that are available to any high-availability service in the cluster. " About your main fear I would sugest a good User manuals for the people who is going to work whit it,... And also Panadol hehe Reagards, Zoran "urgrue" <urgrue@xxxxxxxxxxx> Enviado por: redhat-list-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx 02/02/2010 18:34 Por favor, responda a General Red Hat Linux discussion list <redhat-list@xxxxxxxxxx> Para "General Red Hat Linux discussion list" <redhat-list@xxxxxxxxxx>, "General Red Hat Linux discussion list" <redhat-list@xxxxxxxxxx> cc Asunto Re: HA-LVM vs CLVM On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 05:50 -0700, "Matt Iavarone" <matt.iavarone@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > You don't need ricci or luci for either of these, but they do make it > easier to build and manage your clusters. You can use > system-config-cluster in their place. I'll take a look at system-config-cluster. The manual just made it sound like its kinda deprecated in favor of conga. And I'm not so crazy about conga, it seems I'm able to get strange behaviour out of it even doing the simplest things in the most pristine setups, which partly explains my reluctance to use RHC in all its glory. > You can use, I assume, use just ha-lvm and gfs2 without rgmanager or > cman, but how will you manage the filesystem if the node fails? Will > you manually mount it on your backup node? And there are many options > for a fence device. A red hat cluster using clvm and gfs2 is simple > and easy to manage. Manual mount/activate on the backup node is fine and in fact required in my case, for the same reason that it needs to be ext3 - my employer is ultra-conservative. So I'm not really sure where all this leaves me... The main fear, and the reason I don't want to just "not mount it" on the passive node as suggested by others, is that some helpdesk newbie or careless person goes and starts it on the passive node - very probably destroying the whole thing. Without any measure in place to at the very least produce a warning, it's a bit too plausible a scenario. -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
