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@gluster.org [mailto:gluster-users-bounces@gluster.org] De la part de Jim Kinney
Envoyé : 30 avril 2019 08:20
À : gluster-users@gluster.org; Jiffin Tony Thottan <jthottan@redhat.com>; gluster-users@gluster.org; Gluster Devel <gluster-devel@gluster.org>; gluster-maintainers@gluster.org; nfs-ganesha <nfs-ganesha@redhat.com>; devel@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> 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.