[ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: Antw: [EXT] Re: Order set troubles

[Strahil Nikolov]

>I also remember something about racing with dnsmasq, at which point I'dsay that making cluster depend on availability of DNS is e-h-h-h unwise

Not my choice... Or at least I would deploy bind/unbound caching servers in the same VLAN instead of dnsmasq.Also, Filesystem resource agent's read + write check is quite usefull. We got a crazy clusterized environment where on several occasions read-only FS did not cause a  failover (it's not pacemaker) and I prefer to not be awaken by the oncall when this happens with the Scale-out I'm building (currently it's just the QA cluster, but soon coming the prod).
The bad thing is this one is the first pacemaker in the environment and I need to make it completely 'killer' or I will be forced to use the old cluster solution which is crap (due to the implementation , not due to the product).... double fencing mechanisms, fencing when FS is dead or HANA is having troubles, etc.


Anyway, I am hoping that such kind of constraints will be more easier to implement in the future, as this one is quite complex and it will give me a hard time to explain it to the  colleagues.
Best Regards,Strahil Nikolov
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20210327/0703165a/attachment.htm>