[Pacemaker] benefits of cman?

[Matthew O'Connor]

On 05/22/2012 03:30 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> We were talking about GFS2 and Pacemaker but the same applies to OCFS2.
> If you're just using ocfs2 there is no need for cman.  But if you want
> ocfs2 /and/ a cluster manager - you want them all using the same
> membership and quorum data.
>
Yes, I remember reading that.  In my situation, I am torn between what
works now and what "will" work tomorrow.  My current choice of distro
has some interesting...irregularities, shall we say?  Not to throw
myself into the middle of a "get a real distro" holy war, but:  one
release has working Corosync/Pacemaker but doesn't seem to support cman
integration (even though it carries the packages for it), while a later
release supports cman and (apparently) not corosync/pacemaker alone, but
pacemaker dies a horrible death when I put nodes into standby (not
necessarily cman-related, I realize).  Part of me wants to just build
the whole stack from the sources and get exactly what I want, while
other part wants to save myself the angst, time, and human-error of
doing such a thing, and make the provided packages work.

I am probably trying too hard to future-proof, and either need to stick
with what works now, switch distributions or work harder to solve the
outstanding problems of the latest distro release's cluster packages.

Anyway, thanks for the info - it is most happily received! 
-- Matthew

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/pacemaker/attachments/20120522/e6d0e145/attachment-0003.html>