[Pacemaker] RFC: Any interesting in 2.0.0 betas?

Andrew Beekhof andrew at beekhof.net
Thu Oct 25 21:15:29 EDT 2012

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Digimer <lists at alteeve.ca> wrote:
> On 10/24/2012 09:47 PM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> Does anyone out there have the capacity and interest to test betas of 2.0.0 if I release them?
>> If so, for what distro and version?
>> (Anyone looking for heartbeat to be "supported" in 2.0.0 would be highly encouraged to put their hand up :-)
>> -- Andrew
> If time permits, I will be happy to test 2.0 on F18 x86_64.
> As for heartbeat; The current maintainers, Linbit, have long ago said
> that they are not planning to develop it any longer. It's been
> deprecated for some time and I think it would be good to drop support
> for it.
> I can appreciate a desire to remain agnostic on the communication layer,
> and nothing says pacemaker can't support some theoretical future
> alternative to corosync. For now though, corosync is the only viable
> option. Stating that pacemaker will continue to support heartbeat will
> just help confuse new users.
> Thoughts? (from anyone?)

I've recently been made aware that corosync isn't very happy running
on realtime kernels.
So if you need HA for a realtime application, heartbeat is apparently
a better option to use with pacemaker.

I know of a couple of companies going to some interesting lengths to have this.

So there seems some justification to leave support in, which I'm happy
to do as the effort to keep that code compiling is minimal.
Ideally though, someone would step forward to own the job of
performing regular testing with it.  Like SUSE does for the plugin
based approach.

More information about the Pacemaker mailing list