Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 22:55:10 -0600 From: Alan Robertson <alanr@unix.sh> To: General Linux-HA mailing list <linux-ha@lists.linux-ha.org> Cc: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [Linux-HA] Re: Integrating OCF framework w/ (Net|Free)BSD rc.d Message-ID: <446D4FAE.3030301@unix.sh> In-Reply-To: <20060518125231.5a1f0fa8.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> References: <20060518113707.C82296@arbitor.digitalfreaks.org> <20060518125231.5a1f0fa8.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bill Moran wrote:
> "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.
We really did try to avoid overcomplicating it. In an earlier email I
explained what our requirements were, and how we came to the decisions
that we did. It is more complicated than the bare minimum required by
an init system, but not that much more so - and it's upwards compatible.
> 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.
Let me say that we would find this a Very Good Thing too. Let us know
how we can be of assistance.
FYI: I even own the domain names openha.(org|com), etc ;-). I would
have bought openha.net, but I had to draw the line somewhere...
Non-Linux people seem to like to call it heartbeat. But, all those
domain names are already taken :-(
--
Alan Robertson <alanr@unix.sh>
"Openness is the foundation and preservative of friendship... Let me
claim from you at all times your undisguised opinions." - William
Wilberforce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?446D4FAE.3030301>