10:14 p.m.
Hi,
In the last few days I've started experimenting with some advanced features
in order to create a storage cluster for a relatively large setup (several
servers need shared access to about 30TB of space). Basically what I am
trying to set up is either a GFS or OCFS2 cluster using iSCSI devices as
block-level storage.
What I noticed though is that the required tools in Fedora seem to be in a
state of neglect and I'm wondering what the gameplan is both for the Server
SIG and future RHEL releases that presumably are derived from these tools.
Here is what I've run into so far:
"scsi-target-utils" seems to be the recommended package to create iscsi
targets but it doesn't seem to be well integrated. Configured devices
aren't brought online on boot nor are they switched to offline during
shutdown resulting in error messages like "Targets still in use. Cannot
shutdown service.". The package "netbsd-iscsi" which also provides iscsi
target functionality seems to be much better integrated.
OCFS2 seems to be broken in F10 because of a missing line in the init.d file:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476469
"system-cluster-config" has missing dependencies and references files in
the wrong places:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477496
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477499
I think the Server SIG is the perfect place to address these issues and
maybe come up with some recommendations/best practices regarding advanced
setups involving the above tools.
Regards,
Dennis
1:39 p.m.
Dennis J. wrote:
I think the Server SIG is the perfect place to address these issues
and
maybe come up with some recommendations/best practices regarding advanced
setups involving the above tools.
Regards,
Dennis
Dennis check out the ACE at www.thincrust.org which is a first cut at a
tool designed to aide in advanced post-install set-up for appliances.
This might be what you are looking for or something that could help you
configure a cluster. If you have any questions we have a mailing list:
thincrust-devel(a)redhat.com, or ion irc: #thincrust on freenode.
-D
9 a.m.
On 01/05/2009 08:39 PM, David Huff wrote:
Dennis J. wrote:
> I think the Server SIG is the perfect place to address these issues and
> maybe come up with some recommendations/best practices regarding advanced
> setups involving the above tools.
>
> Regards,
> Dennis
Dennis check out the ACE at www.thincrust.org which is a first cut at a
tool designed to aide in advanced post-install set-up for appliances.
This might be what you are looking for or something that could help you
configure a cluster. If you have any questions we have a mailing list:
thincrust-devel(a)redhat.com, or ion irc: #thincrust on freenode.
My concern right now isn't so much about the configuration of these
technologies but with the fact that they don't seem to be maintained at all
right now and in various states of disarray.
In the regular Fedora world this isn't such a big deal I guess because a
desktop user is unlikely to use OCFS2 or GFS clustering or setup iScsi
shares but with the creation of the server SIG I'm wondering what the plans
are with regards to bringing this stuff back to life.
A Fedora for servers that lets these packages bit-rot like that doesn't
look very useful.
Regards,
Dennis
9:34 a.m.
Dennis J. wrote:
My concern right now isn't so much about the configuration of
these
technologies but with the fact that they don't seem to be maintained at all
right now and in various states of disarray.
ahh I see what you getting at...
In the regular Fedora world this isn't such a big deal I guess
because a
desktop user is unlikely to use OCFS2 or GFS clustering or setup iScsi
shares but with the creation of the server SIG I'm wondering what the plans
are with regards to bringing this stuff back to life.
I have always just used tgtadm for setting up iscsi targets myself. I
know that scsi-target-utils is a "tech preview" in RHEL however I am not
sure its status in Fedora.
I agree that the server sig may be a good place to try and get these
tools more integrated for a Fedora Server.
-D
8:36 a.m.
David Huff píše v St 07. 01. 2009 v 10:34 -0500:
Dennis J. wrote:
> My concern right now isn't so much about the configuration of these
> technologies but with the fact that they don't seem to be maintained at all
> right now and in various states of disarray.
ahh I see what you getting at...
> In the regular Fedora world this isn't such a big deal I guess because a
> desktop user is unlikely to use OCFS2 or GFS clustering or setup iScsi
> shares but with the creation of the server SIG I'm wondering what the plans
> are with regards to bringing this stuff back to life.
I have always just used tgtadm for setting up iscsi targets myself. I
know that scsi-target-utils is a "tech preview" in RHEL however I am not
sure its status in Fedora.
I agree that the server sig may be a good place to try and get these
tools more integrated for a Fedora Server.
The Server SIG is the right place for these technologies, but we are in
need of input from the "real world" about current deficiencies,
problems, success stories etc.
Dan
2:04 p.m.
New subject: Real world stories (was Re: State of GFS, OCFS2, Clustering, iSCSI, etc. in Fedora)
On Thursday, 08 January 2009 at 15:36, Dan Horák wrote:
David Huff píše v St 07. 01. 2009 v 10:34 -0500:
> Dennis J. wrote:
> > My concern right now isn't so much about the configuration of these
> > technologies but with the fact that they don't seem to be maintained at all
> > right now and in various states of disarray.
>
> ahh I see what you getting at...
>
> > In the regular Fedora world this isn't such a big deal I guess because a
> > desktop user is unlikely to use OCFS2 or GFS clustering or setup iScsi
> > shares but with the creation of the server SIG I'm wondering what the plans
> > are with regards to bringing this stuff back to life.
>
> I have always just used tgtadm for setting up iscsi targets myself. I
> know that scsi-target-utils is a "tech preview" in RHEL however I am not
> sure its status in Fedora.
>
> I agree that the server sig may be a good place to try and get these
> tools more integrated for a Fedora Server.
The Server SIG is the right place for these technologies, but we are in
need of input from the "real world" about current deficiencies,
problems, success stories etc.
Here's one about Fedora 9:
I needed to move a module from one modular switch to another, which meant
disconnecting a couple of servers from their ethernet sockets for a couple
of minutes. Their network interfaces never came back. Reason? NetworkManager
never brought the interfaces up again even though the kernel logs showed
"Link up" messages. Solution: switch to the old networking scripts from
initscripts.
Regards,
R.
--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
6:29 p.m.
On 01/08/2009 03:36 PM, Dan Horák wrote:
David Huff píše v St 07. 01. 2009 v 10:34 -0500:
[SNIP]
The Server SIG is the right place for these technologies, but we are in
need of input from the "real world" about current deficiencies,
problems, success stories etc.
That's how I ran into the problems I mentioned. In the near future I will
have to setup approx. 30TB of storage that needs to be available for 5-10
servers. The problem is that OCFS2 seems to be just plain broken, the web
configuration tool described in the RHEL 5 manual for GFS is no longer
present in Fedora and the cluster configuration tool doesn't work because
it tries to call command line tools in the wrong locations.
What I'm wondering is that if fedora is the basis for RHEL then what are
the plans for RHEL 6 regarding these technologies. AFAIK fedora 11 will
form the basis for that but right now GFS and/or clustering in general
seems to suffer from bit-rot.
I'm just surprised that GFS is a cornerstone of RHEL 5 but now seems to be
basically unmaintained or is the RHEL team maintaining forked versions of
these tools?
Regards,
Dennis
3:48 a.m.
Dennis J. wrote:
On 01/08/2009 03:36 PM, Dan Horák wrote:
> David Huff píše v St 07. 01. 2009 v 10:34 -0500:
[SNIP]
> The Server SIG is the right place for these technologies, but we are in
> need of input from the "real world" about current deficiencies,
> problems, success stories etc.
For questions about supporting the clustering technologies in Fedora better ask
on linux-cluster list (see https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster)
Milan
That's how I ran into the problems I mentioned. In the near future I will
have to setup approx. 30TB of storage that needs to be available for 5-10
servers. The problem is that OCFS2 seems to be just plain broken, the web
configuration tool described in the RHEL 5 manual for GFS is no longer
present in Fedora and the cluster configuration tool doesn't work because
it tries to call command line tools in the wrong locations.
What I'm wondering is that if fedora is the basis for RHEL then what are
the plans for RHEL 6 regarding these technologies. AFAIK fedora 11 will
form the basis for that but right now GFS and/or clustering in general
seems to suffer from bit-rot.
I'm just surprised that GFS is a cornerstone of RHEL 5 but now seems to be
basically unmaintained or is the RHEL team maintaining forked versions of
these tools?
5:05 a.m.
Hi,
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 10:48 +0100, Milan Broz wrote:
Dennis J. wrote:
> On 01/08/2009 03:36 PM, Dan Horák wrote:
>> David Huff píše v St 07. 01. 2009 v 10:34 -0500:
> [SNIP]
>> The Server SIG is the right place for these technologies, but we are in
>> need of input from the "real world" about current deficiencies,
>> problems, success stories etc.
For questions about supporting the clustering technologies in Fedora better ask
on linux-cluster list (see https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster)
Milan
>
> That's how I ran into the problems I mentioned. In the near future I will
> have to setup approx. 30TB of storage that needs to be available for 5-10
> servers. The problem is that OCFS2 seems to be just plain broken, the web
> configuration tool described in the RHEL 5 manual for GFS is no longer
> present in Fedora and the cluster configuration tool doesn't work because
> it tries to call command line tools in the wrong locations.
>
> What I'm wondering is that if fedora is the basis for RHEL then what are
> the plans for RHEL 6 regarding these technologies. AFAIK fedora 11 will
> form the basis for that but right now GFS and/or clustering in general
> seems to suffer from bit-rot.
>
> I'm just surprised that GFS is a cornerstone of RHEL 5 but now seems to be
> basically unmaintained or is the RHEL team maintaining forked versions of
> these tools?
I also subscribed to this list on Milan suggestion. I'll try to reply
asap to your query.
Generally we prefer to discuss everything on upstream mailing list.
Fabio
6:01 a.m.
New subject: State of GFS, OCFS2, Clustering, iSCSI, etc. in Fedora (recap a few bits)
Hi all,
sorry if i can't reply to each email properly as I don't have a local
history of the mailing list.
To reply to
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/fedora-server-list/2009-January/...
My concern right now isn't so much about the configuration of
these
technologies but with the fact that they don't seem to be maintained at all
right now and in various states of disarray.
Can you please be more specific? I have been updating redhat-cluster on a regular base in
Fedora 9/10/rawhide.
What makes you think they are unmaintained?
A Fedora for servers that lets these packages bit-rot like that
doesn't
look very useful.
If you are experiencing issues, either file bug reports or talk to
upstream. We have been extremely responsive to everybody so far.
To reply to
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/fedora-server-list/2009-January/...
Reason? NetworkManager
never brought the interfaces up again even though the kernel logs showed
"Link up" messages. Solution: switch to the old networking scripts from
initscripts.
Network Manager is a desktop/laptop technology a properly installed
server shouldn't have NM at all. This is not something related to
cluster of any cluster filesystem in general == off topic for this
thread.
> That's how I ran into the problems I mentioned. In the near
future I will
> have to setup approx. 30TB of storage that needs to be available for 5-10
> servers. The problem is that OCFS2 seems to be just plain broken,
Did you report those issues to upstream? We work with OCFS2 guys all the
time and they are very responsive.
the web
> configuration tool described in the RHEL 5 manual for GFS is no longer
> present in Fedora
conga is part of Fedora 9/10/rawhide. Look for ricci, modcluster,
cluster-snmp and cluster-cim packages.
and the cluster configuration tool doesn't work because
> it tries to call command line tools in the wrong locations.
system-config-cluster has been obsoleted. Unless you mean some other
tools, in that case please specify which.
> What I'm wondering is that if fedora is the basis for RHEL
then what are
> the plans for RHEL 6 regarding these technologies. AFAIK fedora 11 will
> form the basis for that but right now GFS and/or clustering in general
> seems to suffer from bit-rot.
The plans for F11 are very well set for upstream and been communicated
across the board through public mailing lists.
Anyway, so far I have read a lot of "bit-rot" this or "broken" that,
but
you didn't provide any real info on the problems.
I'd be very happy to coordinate the fixes upstream and propagate them
into Fedora ASAP given enough info.
> I'm just surprised that GFS is a cornerstone of RHEL 5 but
now seems to be
> basically unmaintained or is the RHEL team maintaining forked versions of
> these tools?
RHEL doesn't have any forked tool. You can check upstream wiki and git
repositories yourself. All our development is done in the open.
Cheers,
Fabio
1:15 p.m.
New subject: State of GFS, OCFS2, Clustering, iSCSI, etc. in Fedora (recap a few bits)
On 01/14/2009 01:01 PM, Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote:
Hi all,
sorry if i can't reply to each email properly as I don't have a local
history of the mailing list.
To reply to
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/fedora-server-list/2009-January/...
> My concern right now isn't so much about the configuration of these
> technologies but with the fact that they don't seem to be maintained at all
> right now and in various states of disarray.
Can you please be more specific? I have been updating redhat-cluster on a regular base in
Fedora 9/10/rawhide.
What makes you think they are unmaintained?
mounting ocfs2 partition fails due to missing load_module command in
startup script:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476469
(A added the needed fix and the keyword "EasyFix" to the bug)
Missing dependency: rgmanager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477496
system-config-cluster is looking for cman_tool in the wrong place
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477499
The reason I was bringing this up on the mailing-list is that bugs like the
ocfs2 issue and the problem with the cman_tool location are highly visible
so I was wondering why such bugs didn't seem to pop up on anyones radar.
After having the problems with system-config-cluster I tried Conga as the
alternative route for configuration but "luci" seems to have gone AWOL.
According to http://sourceware.org/cluster/conga/ Conga wasn't part of F7
and F8 because of python compat. issues. Is this the reason that luci isn't
part of F10?
>> That's how I ran into the problems I mentioned. In the
near future I will
>> have to setup approx. 30TB of storage that needs to be available for 5-10
>> servers. The problem is that OCFS2 seems to be just plain broken,
Did you report those issues to upstream? We work with OCFS2 guys all the
time and they are very responsive.
The question for me is if the problem is fixed upstream how long does it
take for them to get into fedora? The fix for the ocfs2 problem was posted
in Ubuntus launchpad in October and given the fact that this bug prevents
ocfs2 from working completely I'm wondering why it's still present in
Fedora. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that virtually nobody
uses ocfs2 in fedora which is why it didn't get reported until now.
That's not necessarily a big problem per se but if this technology is
considered low priority in Fedora then that factors into my decision to
rely on it.
> the web
>> configuration tool described in the RHEL 5 manual for GFS is no longer
>> present in Fedora
conga is part of Fedora 9/10/rawhide. Look for ricci, modcluster,
cluster-snmp and cluster-cim packages.
What about luci?
> and the cluster configuration tool doesn't work because
>> it tries to call command line tools in the wrong locations.
system-config-cluster has been obsoleted. Unless you mean some other
tools, in that case please specify which.
>> What I'm wondering is that if fedora is the basis for RHEL then what are
>> the plans for RHEL 6 regarding these technologies. AFAIK fedora 11 will
>> form the basis for that but right now GFS and/or clustering in general
>> seems to suffer from bit-rot.
The plans for F11 are very well set for upstream and been communicated
across the board through public mailing lists.
Anyway, so far I have read a lot of "bit-rot" this or "broken" that,
but
you didn't provide any real info on the problems.
I'd be very happy to coordinate the fixes upstream and propagate them
into Fedora ASAP given enough info.
I think the basic problem is that I'm trying to feel my way into the
clustering field but run into a lot of conflicting information. For example
I am supposed to look upstream for info (which I generally agree with) but
when I look at the Conga homepage the user manual tells me to install
"luci". Apparently that information is outdated. Since I have to start
somewhere I chose the latest "Red Hat Cluster Suite for Red Hat Enterprise
Linux" which talks about system-config-cluster which as I learned above is
basically no longer relevant.
Is there some kind of "clustering lab" site out there that contains more
recent information about these technologies?
>> I'm just surprised that GFS is a cornerstone of RHEL 5
but now seems to be
>> basically unmaintained or is the RHEL team maintaining forked versions of
>> these tools?
RHEL doesn't have any forked tool. You can check upstream wiki and git
repositories yourself. All our development is done in the open.
That's what I thought and that's why I was so confused when running into
these problems. The trouble I ran into didn't seem to make sense given the
success Red Hat is having with this stuff in the field so I decided to take
this to the brand new fedora-server list so I could perhaps get some more
insight into what's going on with this stuff.
Regards,
Dennis
2:03 p.m.
New subject: State of GFS, OCFS2, Clustering, iSCSI, etc. in Fedora (recap a few bits)
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 20:15 +0100, Dennis J. wrote:
On 01/14/2009 01:01 PM, Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> sorry if i can't reply to each email properly as I don't have a local
> history of the mailing list.
>
> To reply to
>
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/fedora-server-list/2009-January/...
>
>> My concern right now isn't so much about the configuration of these
>> technologies but with the fact that they don't seem to be maintained at all
>> right now and in various states of disarray.
>
> Can you please be more specific? I have been updating redhat-cluster on a regular
base in Fedora 9/10/rawhide.
> What makes you think they are unmaintained?
>
mounting ocfs2 partition fails due to missing load_module command in
startup script:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476469
(A added the needed fix and the keyword "EasyFix" to the bug)
I forwarded this to upstream now. It's probably already fixed in more
recent versions of ocfs2-tools upstream. We were discussing to propagate
them into fedora 2 days ago.
Missing dependency: rgmanager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477496
system-config-cluster is looking for cman_tool in the wrong place
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477499
Jim can you please look at those bugs and decide if
system-config-cluster should either be removed or fixed for Fedora in
favour of conga? cman already requires conga components.
The reason I was bringing this up on the mailing-list is that bugs
like the
ocfs2 issue and the problem with the cman_tool location are highly visible
so I was wondering why such bugs didn't seem to pop up on anyones radar.
Because clearly there is a very low user base for them. ocfs2 is "new"
in fedora as we (ocfs2 guys and me) revived the package not too long
ago.
system-config-cluster.. same comment as above.. it's just plain
obsolete.
After having the problems with system-config-cluster I tried Conga as the
alternative route for configuration but "luci" seems to have gone AWOL.
According to http://sourceware.org/cluster/conga/ Conga wasn't part of F7
and F8 because of python compat. issues. Is this the reason that luci isn't
part of F10?
conga/luci and modules are there from F9. I have updates some of those
builds myself so I am sure they are there.
>>> That's how I ran into the problems I mentioned. In the near future I
will
>>> have to setup approx. 30TB of storage that needs to be available for 5-10
>>> servers. The problem is that OCFS2 seems to be just plain broken,
>
> Did you report those issues to upstream? We work with OCFS2 guys all the
> time and they are very responsive.
The question for me is if the problem is fixed upstream how long does it
take for them to get into fedora?
Not long. If the problem is only package related it's usually less than
24 hours. If the fix need to go upstream, probably one or two weeks
(time it takes to do some builds, testing and collect enough fixes to
make it worth issuing an update for everybody).
For rawhide it's a lot faster of course.
The fix for the ocfs2 problem was posted
in Ubuntus launchpad in October and given the fact that this bug prevents
ocfs2 from working completely I'm wondering why it's still present in
Fedora.
Because nobody reported it to fedora so far? As upstream we cannot track
all possible sources of bugs. That is why every distribution/packager
has the golden rule to be the gateway for distro bugs to upstream.
The only conclusion I can draw from that is that virtually nobody
uses ocfs2 in fedora which is why it didn't get reported until now.
This is entirely possible. Except that upstream does some development
directly in Fedora and most of it on Debian (there are tons of bugs
upstream has been trying to get fixed in Debian and that are not flowing
into Ubuntu).
That's not necessarily a big problem per se but if this
technology is
considered low priority in Fedora then that factors into my decision to
rely on it.
See.. you reported me a problem approx 10 minutes ago. Piped through the
proper lines, it's being addressed as we speak. Clearly signs of user
base will gather attention from the right people.
>> the web
>>> configuration tool described in the RHEL 5 manual for GFS is no longer
>>> present in Fedora
>
> conga is part of Fedora 9/10/rawhide. Look for ricci, modcluster,
> cluster-snmp and cluster-cim packages.
What about luci?
It's in the package list I posted before.
>> and the cluster configuration tool doesn't work because
>>> it tries to call command line tools in the wrong locations.
>
> system-config-cluster has been obsoleted. Unless you mean some other
> tools, in that case please specify which.
>
>>> What I'm wondering is that if fedora is the basis for RHEL then what
are
>>> the plans for RHEL 6 regarding these technologies. AFAIK fedora 11 will
>>> form the basis for that but right now GFS and/or clustering in general
>>> seems to suffer from bit-rot.
>
> The plans for F11 are very well set for upstream and been communicated
> across the board through public mailing lists.
>
> Anyway, so far I have read a lot of "bit-rot" this or "broken"
that, but
> you didn't provide any real info on the problems.
> I'd be very happy to coordinate the fixes upstream and propagate them
> into Fedora ASAP given enough info.
I think the basic problem is that I'm trying to feel my way into the
clustering field but run into a lot of conflicting information.
For example
I am supposed to look upstream for info (which I generally agree with) but
when I look at the Conga homepage the user manual tells me to install
"luci". Apparently that information is outdated. Since I have to start
somewhere I chose the latest "Red Hat Cluster Suite for Red Hat Enterprise
Linux" which talks about system-config-cluster which as I learned above is
basically no longer relevant.
Jim, Ryan: can we please update the conga web site to reflect a newer
status of things?
Is there some kind of "clustering lab" site out there that contains more
recent information about these technologies?
Not yet but this has been discussed at Cluster Summit 2008. All
information will be collected (from all different projects) in one
single umbrella that will work as reference point.
>>> I'm just surprised that GFS is a cornerstone of RHEL 5 but now seems to
be
>>> basically unmaintained or is the RHEL team maintaining forked versions of
>>> these tools?
>
> RHEL doesn't have any forked tool. You can check upstream wiki and git
> repositories yourself. All our development is done in the open.
That's what I thought and that's why I was so confused when running into
these problems.
the problem you are hitting with system-config-cluster is packaging
related. cman_tool in RHEL4/5 has a different location than F10/rawhide.
This is a known issue that will be addressed in rawhide. F10 still holds
some legacy bits to be backward compatible with F9.
The trouble I ran into didn't seem to make sense given the
success Red Hat is having with this stuff in the field so I decided to take
this to the brand new fedora-server list so I could perhaps get some more
insight into what's going on with this stuff.
Well some of them are valid issues, others are old/not updated
documentation that is still at RHEL5 level. Things have been evolving a
lot in the meantime and generally new docs are generated when a new
stable upstream release happens. So far (since RHEL5/STABLE2) there have
been no new major stable releases (with 3.0.0 upcoming in a couple of
months just for F11). So you are looking into a transition phase of the
software and expect to be everything already settled.
Fabio
10:48 p.m.
New subject: State of GFS, OCFS2, Clustering, iSCSI, etc. in Fedora (recap a few bits)
On 01/14/2009 09:03 PM, Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote:
> After having the problems with system-config-cluster I tried
Conga as the
> alternative route for configuration but "luci" seems to have gone AWOL.
> According to http://sourceware.org/cluster/conga/ Conga wasn't part of F7
> and F8 because of python compat. issues. Is this the reason that luci isn't
> part of F10?
conga/luci and modules are there from F9. I have updates some of those
builds myself so I am sure they are there.
But where exactly are they? I've tried finding packages like "*luci*" and
"*conga*" with yum. I looked into the packages you mentioned previously
(modcluster, ricci, cluster-snmp and cluster-cim). I tried a repoquery for
"*luci*", "*Luci*", "*conga*" and "*Conga*" but
none of the resulting
packages have anything to do with clustering.
Well some of them are valid issues, others are old/not updated
documentation that is still at RHEL5 level. Things have been evolving a
lot in the meantime and generally new docs are generated when a new
stable upstream release happens. So far (since RHEL5/STABLE2) there have
been no new major stable releases (with 3.0.0 upcoming in a couple of
months just for F11). So you are looking into a transition phase of the
software and expect to be everything already settled.
Apparently my timing for diving into this was a bit unfortunate. A bit
earlier and I would have found things to be closer to the current
documentation on the web. A bit later and the documentation probably would
have reflected the current state of things more.
Thanks for the pointers so far. That information definitely helped to clear
some of the confusion surrounding the current state of cluster related
technologies in fedora for a newbie like me.
Regards,
Dennis
11:54 p.m.
New subject: State of GFS, OCFS2, Clustering, iSCSI, etc. in Fedora (recap a few bits)
On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 05:48 +0100, Dennis J. wrote:
On 01/14/2009 09:03 PM, Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote:
>> After having the problems with system-config-cluster I tried Conga as the
>> alternative route for configuration but "luci" seems to have gone
AWOL.
>> According to http://sourceware.org/cluster/conga/ Conga wasn't part of F7
>> and F8 because of python compat. issues. Is this the reason that luci isn't
>> part of F10?
>
> conga/luci and modules are there from F9. I have updates some of those
> builds myself so I am sure they are there.
>
But where exactly are they? I've tried finding packages like "*luci*" and
"*conga*" with yum. I looked into the packages you mentioned previously
(modcluster, ricci, cluster-snmp and cluster-cim). I tried a repoquery for
"*luci*", "*Luci*", "*conga*" and "*Conga*" but
none of the resulting
packages have anything to do with clustering.
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/releases/10/Everything...
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/releases/10/Everything...
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/releases/10/Everything...
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/releases/10/Everything...
Of course you can change i386 to whatever architecture you are running.
*conga* and *luci* are project name and one of the component names of
the above packages and they are mentioned in the package description.
> Well some of them are valid issues, others are old/not updated
> documentation that is still at RHEL5 level. Things have been evolving a
> lot in the meantime and generally new docs are generated when a new
> stable upstream release happens. So far (since RHEL5/STABLE2) there have
> been no new major stable releases (with 3.0.0 upcoming in a couple of
> months just for F11). So you are looking into a transition phase of the
> software and expect to be everything already settled.
Apparently my timing for diving into this was a bit unfortunate. A bit
earlier and I would have found things to be closer to the current
documentation on the web.
A bit later and the documentation probably would
have reflected the current state of things more.
I have asked people to start updating some of the conga web site
information already in my previous email.
Thanks for the pointers so far. That information definitely helped to clear
some of the confusion surrounding the current state of cluster related
technologies in fedora for a newbie like me.
You want to spend a few minutes on our mailing list archive to read the
goals for next generation cluster (the ones _after_ F11) as all our
stacks (Novell - pacemaker, Oracle - ocfs2-tools and Red Hat cluster)
will converge into one, killing the whole decision problem at the root.
I am sure you will be interested in that process as well.
Fabio
11:04 p.m.
On 01/07/2009 04:34 PM, David Huff wrote:
Dennis J. wrote:
> My concern right now isn't so much about the configuration of these
> technologies but with the fact that they don't seem to be maintained at all
> right now and in various states of disarray.
ahh I see what you getting at...
> In the regular Fedora world this isn't such a big deal I guess because a
> desktop user is unlikely to use OCFS2 or GFS clustering or setup iScsi
> shares but with the creation of the server SIG I'm wondering what the plans
> are with regards to bringing this stuff back to life.
I have always just used tgtadm for setting up iscsi targets myself. I
know that scsi-target-utils is a "tech preview" in RHEL however I am not
sure its status in Fedora.
I've been using "netbsd-iscsi" for setting up targets. I found that to be a
lot more intuitive to setup and control. All I had to do was putting this
into /etc/iscsi/targets:
# extents file start length
extent0 /root/iscsistorage 0 size
# target flags storage netmask
target0 rw extent0 192.168.2.0/24
After that I have /root/iscsistorage available as a target and it gets
setup properly on boot.
With tgtadm I couldn't get it to setup the target automatically on boot and
on shutdown it complained that it couldn't get rid of the target for some
reason. At least at a first glance it didn't look as well integrated as
netbsd-iscsi.
Regards,
Dennis
5574
days inactive
5599
days old
server@lists.fedoraproject.org
14 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Dan Horák -
David Huff -
Dennis Jacobfeuerborn -
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski -
Fabio M. Di Nitto -
Milan Broz