RAFT and CTDB

[Scott Lovenberg]

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Rowland Penny <repenny241155 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 04/12/14 14:28, ronnie sahlberg wrote:
>
>> Seriously.
>>
>> Richard Sharpe has just invested a lot of his time to try to help you with
>> OCFS2 and have demonstrated how/what you need to do to get OCFS2 working
>> with CTDB.
>> And this is how you reward him?
>>
>> Your email is very disrespectful.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:42 PM, steve <steve at steve-ss.com> wrote:
>>
>>  On 03/12/14 23:22, Richard Sharpe wrote:
>>>
>>>  On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 2:09 PM, steve <steve at steve-ss.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  On 03/12/14 22:46, Richard Sharpe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    And you can have more than one node up at the same time. Is that
>>>>>> what
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> your setup does too?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed. Both nodes are up at this very instant
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Is it better to have both nodes up at the same time? It doesn't seem to
>>>>> make
>>>>> much difference here. Unless we have a big jpg.
>>>>>
>>>>>  The whole point of CTDB is so that more than one node can be up at the
>>>> same time and the load is shared across those multiple nodes.
>>>>
>>>>  You're almost there. A few more digs at the documentation and you'll
>>> have
>>> made it. ctdb provides fail-over. Important for but not HA. As you
>>> describe
>>> it.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Do try to keep up.
>>>>
>>>>  You too.
>>>
>>>  Steve's replies could have been worded better and Richard has spent a
> considerable time showing that OCFS2 will work with CTDB. The only problem
> that I can see is, whilst Richard used Centos and the Oracle kernel,
> neither of the two people who are having/have had problems with CTDB use
> this distro or kernel. If CTDB will only work with Centos and the Oracle
> kernel, then in my opinion, it has problems. The only way to prove this one
> way or the other, is for Richard to post his setup and for someone to try
> and set it up on Debian (other distros are available ;-) ).
>
> Rowland
>
>
I'll skip past the manners and etiquette discussion for fear of turning
this into a bike shed thread; for the most part we're all usually pretty
polite here.  Having just moved to the Twin Cities (read: southern Canada),
I now suspect we have a lot of Canadian developers.  :) I can point to a
few other open source communities for comparison if anyone thinks we're
uncivil at times.  Having gotten that out of the way...

I think Richard's test probably more models what you'd normally see in this
kind of setup.  RHEL or SLED are most likely the majority of Linux servers
distributions used in a company where you'd be setting up clustering.  That
being said, my experience with Red Hat's cluster suite has taught me that
it's a _very_ difficult environment to get setup correctly even with Red
Hat's documentation and plenty of forum help.  Especially if you try to be
clever and customize your environment at all. Red Hat also has so many
upsteam, downstream and backported patches mixed together in any package
release that those packages might as well be considered another product all
together.  Nothing they release is even close to the original upstream
'vanilla' release.

However, having a clean working virtual machine base build as a starting
point for people trying to get this up and running on other distributions
would probably be very helpful for them and lower the mailing list volume.
-- 
Peace and Blessings,
-Scott.