Re: [ANNOUNCE] Minneapolis Cluster Summit, July 29-30

Chris Friesen
2004-07-08T14:14:53Z

David Teigland wrote:

> I'm afraid the fencing issue has been rather misrepresented. Here's
> what we're
> doing (a lot of background is necessary I'm afraid.) We have a symmetric,
> kernel-based, stand-alone cluster manager (CMAN) that has no ties to
> anything
> else whatsoever. It'll simply run and answer the question "who's in the
> cluster?" by providing a list of names/nodeids.
>
> So, if that's all you want you can just run cman on all your nodes and
> it'll
> tell you who's in the cluster (kernel and userland api's). CMAN will
> also do
> generic callbacks to tell you when the membership has changed. Some
> people can
> stop reading here.

I'm curious--this seems to be exactly what the cluster membership portion of the
SAF spec provides. Would it make sense to contribute to that portion of
OpenAIS, then export the CMAN API on top of it for backwards compatibility?

It just seems like there are a bunch of different cluster messaging, membership,
etc. systems, and there is a lot of work being done in parallel with different
implementations of the same functionality. Now that there is a standard
emerging for clustering (good or bad, we've got people asking for it) would it
make sense to try and get behind that standard and try and make a reference
implementation?

You guys are more experienced than I, but it seems a bit of a waste to see all
these projects re-inventing the wheel.

Chris