Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 12:52:31 -0400 From: Bill Moran <wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> To: "Brian A. Seklecki" <lavalamp@spiritual-machines.org> Cc: linux-ha@lists.linux-ha.org, freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Integrating OCF framework w/ (Net|Free)BSD rc.d Message-ID: <20060518125231.5a1f0fa8.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> In-Reply-To: <20060518113707.C82296@arbitor.digitalfreaks.org> References: <20060518113707.C82296@arbitor.digitalfreaks.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Brian A. Seklecki" <lavalamp@spiritual-machines.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 May 2006, joerg@britannica.bec.de wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 01:35:51PM -0400, Brian A. Seklecki wrote:
> > [SNIP]
> >>
> >> I'm interested in any discussion / thoughts on a strategy or apporach for
> >> coding OCF compatibility / integration into our rc.d/ system
> >
> > Oh my god, another over-complicated Linux "standard" which uses the
>
> A lot of this goes without saying. However, Linux-HA is the only available,
> portable Failover Management Software (FMS) available for POSIX compliant
> systems. It's under active development and the 2.x branch has some game.
>
> I'm not talking about changing any default behavior, I'm asking what the best
> strategy would be to put hooks in place to easily enable "compatibility" mode.
>
> Adding new commands is easy with $extra_commands, but changing return codes
> requires some if[]'s in-tree. An extra couple of cycles blown isn't that bad
> of a tradeoff to bring high availability (HA) / failover features to *BSD.
There was a post to questions@freebsd.org regarding recommendations for
HA setup of FreeBSD. The post got no responses.
While overcomplicating the rc system is A Bad Thing(tm) in my opinion, I think
there is some severe lacking in this area. i.e. _something_ needs to be
implemented. Linux HA/OCF seems to share a lot with the existing rcng
system, and seems to be the most logical system to try to use.
I work with Brian. Knowing our requirements, we're going to set this stuff
up, because we need it. Both Brian and I would like to contribute our
improvements back to the community. If we could get a consensus on what
approach to the problem is most likely to be accepted by the community,
then we _will_ be doing work over the next few months that will benefit
FreeBSD, and we _will_ be contributing it back to FreeBSD.
So, the upshot of this discussion is that Collaborative Fusion is going to
be throwing developer resources at FreeBSD HA. We'd like feedback from the
FreeBSD community on how we can best do this so that it can be integrated
back into the FreeBSD source tree. We've already done _some_ research and
we're looking for input.
--
Bill Moran
Also, I can kill you with my brain.
River Tam
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060518125231.5a1f0fa8.wmoran>