[ClusterLabs] Antw: DLM, cLVM, GFS2 and OCFS2 managed by systemd instead of crm ?

Lentes, Bernd bernd.lentes at helmholtz-muenchen.de
Wed Oct 16 09:47:19 EDT 2019

----- On Oct 16, 2019, at 8:27 AM, Digimer lists at alteeve.ca wrote:

> On 2019-10-16 2:16 a.m., Ulrich Windl wrote:
>>>>> "Lentes, Bernd" <bernd.lentes at helmholtz-muenchen.de> schrieb am 15.10.2019
>> um
>> 21:35 in Nachricht
>> <1922568650.3402980.1571168140600.JavaMail.zimbra at helmholtz-muenchen.de>:
>>> Hi,
>>> i'm a big fan of simple solutions (KISS).
>>> Currently i have DLM, cLVM, GFS2 and OCFS2 managed by pacemaker.
>>> They all are fundamental prerequisites for my resources (Virtual Domains).
>>> To configure them i used clones and groups.
>>> Why not having them managed by systemd to make the cluster setup more
>>> overseeable ?
>>> Is there a strong reason that pacemaker cares about them ?
>> AFAIK, DLM (others maybe too) need the cluster infrastructure (comminication
>> layer) to be operable.
>> Also I consider systemd handling resources being worse than pacemaker.
>> What is your specific problem? Keeping the cluster configuration simple while
>> moving complexity to systemd?
>> Do you know one command to describe your systemd configuration as short as the
>> cluster configuration (like crm configuration show)?
>> Regards,
>> Ulrich
> This is correct. DLM uses corosync.

OK. I understand. I will stay with pacemaker.
Thanks for all answers.


Helmholtz Zentrum Muenchen
Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer Gesundheit und Umwelt (GmbH)
Ingolstaedter Landstr. 1
85764 Neuherberg
Aufsichtsratsvorsitzende: MinDir'in Prof. Dr. Veronika von Messling
Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr. med. Dr. h.c. Matthias Tschoep, Kerstin Guenther
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 6466
USt-IdNr: DE 129521671

More information about the Users mailing list