[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Linux-cluster] rgmanager or pacemaker?

On 19/08/13 10:55, Patrick Lists wrote:

I'm new to clustering and going through the clusterlabs and Red Hat
HA/cluster docs with the goal to setup a 2-node cluster with drbd, gfs2,
mysql and nginx failover on CentOS6.4. I'm wondering about rgmanager &
pacemaker. Are they both solutions for the same problem? The difference
between the two and when to use which isn't clear to me. So which one to
choose/use? The RH docs only refer to rgmanager while the Clusters from
Scratch (CMAN version) doc and info on the Internet mostly use pacemaker.


Both options have pros and cons. They can be boiled down to this;

Red Hat (and thus, CentOS) will move to Pacemaker in RHEL/CentOS 7. A *lot* of work is happening in RHEL6's pacemaker et. al. to prepare for this. As such, pacemaker is in "Tech Preview" mode. What that means is that it is not generally supported and it doesn't get updates between y-stream releases (6.3 -> 6,4, etc).

Now it's important to note; Pacemaker is and has been production ready for a long time. It's just the rapid changes on RHEL 6 specifically that make it a moving target. So if you go with Pacemaker, be sure to add the clusterlabs.org repo.

The biggest argument for rgmanager is that it is well baked and very stable/unchanging. Personally, I use it for my RHEL/CentOS 6 clusters for this reason. It is fully supported and will remain supported until 2020. Now, this said, you would be learning/using a technology that will be replaced.

So to summarize;

Pacemaker is the future but is actively developing/minimally supported on RHEL 6.

rgmanager is super stable and fully supported, but will be removed/replaced in RHEL 7.



Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/
What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without access to education?

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]