Re: [CentOS] Replacement for Linux-HA (heartbeat) - RedHat cluster?

On Nov 30, 2007 6:53 PM, Amos Shapira <amos.shapira@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30/11/2007, Matt Shields <mattboston@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Take Xen out of the picture until you learn how heartbeat and
> > ipvsadm/ldirectord actually work. You could be having network issues
> > because you are hosting it on a virtual server instead of on a real
> > server. So it's kinda hard to troubleshoot if you don't even know if
> > your configs are broken. Get two crappy boxes that you can load
> > everything up on, configure them with heartbeat, get that working
>
> Thanks for your suggestion. The reason I use Xen (beyond the huge
> convenience) is that I don't have spare hardware to play with.
>
> > where it will failover an IP. then add some other service like
> > ipvsadm/ldirectord, and take things one step at a time. Don't try to
> > setup everything all at once, it makes it harder to try to debug
> > problems.
>
> That's exactly what (I think) I did - just stuck to instructions from
> someone who seems to have been in exactly the same position and got it
> working.
>
> As for network issues - I see the packets coming and going all right.
> But I also see programs just crash and burn - I've just executed
> BasicSanityCheck on the primary node which appeared to be working
> relatively fine a couple of minutes ago (at least it got more
> processes running after three minutes than the other node) and that
> failed too with core dumps.
>
> > I'm using CentOS4 and RHEL4 using dag'd rpms on a few of the CentOS
> > and RHEL boxes and built from source on some of the other ones. I
> > haven't had a chance to try out a CentOS 5 system yet. But as to your
> > stability questions, we've been using LVS for about 3 or 4 years now
> > and never, ever had stability problems.
>
> So maybe I should try to get packages from dag, even though there are
> ones included in CentOS?
>
> Which exact version of hearbeat are you using right now? From reading
> the history of Linux-HA it appears there was a huge change between 1.x
> and 2.x
>

2.x

-- 
-matt
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos