Discussion: Changes afoot in the Linux HA cluster landscape

Sander van Vugt Profile: svanvugt
Red Hat
The pool of Linux HA cluster options is narrowing as Pacemaker becomes the preferred choice for SUSE, Ubuntu and Red Hat.

1 Comment on this article

There was an error processing your information. Please try again later.
Thanks. We'll let you know when a new response is added.
Send me notifications when other members comment.
  • benyau213
    Nice article. I've actually had to use both Redhat and SLES fairly extensively (at least with clustering) in the last year and you have a lot of good points. SLES definitely is easier to put a cluster up, and being able to do resource constraints/dependencies is a cluster MUST. With Redhat, you cannot do that (!!). So the answer was making each resource dependent on the previous resource. We had 36 resources and eventually you could not use the GUI anymore to manage them because it could not manage all the XML tags in the browser.

    Redhat also had weird implementations of quorum disk. Years ago we even had a RHCE come out to build our two node cluster and he couldn't get it working. Fast forward to last year and the overwhelming google search still said "quorum disks are hard to configure so it's better to do without and if it's a two node cluster let them race to fence each other." (WHAT?!) Eventually I did figure out how to do the timings, it's definitely a pain to set up, but once set up works pretty well.

    Overall: happy that at least the two enterprise level linux (redhat and sles) have pretty solid cluster software, and glad redhat is migrating!

    Thanks for the article!
    10 pointsBadges:

Forgot Password

No problem! Submit your e-mail address below. We'll send you an e-mail containing your password.

Your password has been sent to:

To follow this tag...

There was an error processing your information. Please try again later.

Thanks! We'll email you when relevant content is added and updated.


Share this item with your network: