IMO, you should keep storhaug and maintain it. At the beginning, we were with pacemaker
and corosync. Then we move to storhaug with the upgrade to gluster 4.1.x. Now you are
talking about going back like it was. Maybe it will be better with pacemake and corosync
but the important is to have a solution that will be stable and maintained.
thanks
Renaud
De : gluster-users-bounces(a)gluster.org [mailto:gluster-users-bounces@gluster.org] De la
part de Jim Kinney
Envoyé : 30 avril 2019 08:20
À : gluster-users(a)gluster.org; Jiffin Tony Thottan <jthottan(a)redhat.com>;
gluster-users(a)gluster.org; Gluster Devel <gluster-devel(a)gluster.org>;
gluster-maintainers(a)gluster.org; nfs-ganesha <nfs-ganesha(a)redhat.com>;
devel(a)lists.nfs-ganesha.org
Objet : Re: [Gluster-users] Proposing to previous ganesha HA cluster solution back to
gluster code as gluster-7 feature
+1!
I'm using nfs-ganesha in my next upgrade so my client systems can use NFS instead of
fuse mounts. Having an integrated, designed in process to coordinate multiple nodes into
an HA cluster will very welcome.
On April 30, 2019 3:20:11 AM EDT, Jiffin Tony Thottan
<jthottan@redhat.com<mailto:jthottan@redhat.com>> wrote:
Hi all,
Some of you folks may be familiar with HA solution provided for nfs-ganesha by gluster
using pacemaker and corosync.
That feature was removed in glusterfs 3.10 in favour for common HA project
"Storhaug". Even Storhaug was not progressed
much from last two years and current development is in halt state, hence planning to
restore old HA ganesha solution back
to gluster code repository with some improvement and targetting for next gluster release
7.
I have opened up an issue [1] with details and posted initial set of patches [2]
Please share your thoughts on the same
Regards,
Jiffin
[1]
https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/issues/663
[2]
https://review.gluster.org/#/q/topic:rfc-663+(status:open+OR+status:merged)
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. All tyopes are thumb related and reflect
authenticity.