Open Stack

> [...]
> > Pacemaker is *the* Linux HA Stack.
> [...]
> 
> Can you expand on this assertion? It doesn't look to me like it's
> part of the Linux source tree and I see strong evidence to suggest
> it's released and distributed completely separately from the kernel.
If you read "Linux" as "GNU/Linux" or "Linux platform", instead of
"Linux kernel", it's what I meant.


> Statements like this one make the rest of your messages look even
> more like a marketing campaign, so I'd love to understand what you
> really mean (I seriously doubt you're campaigning for this specific
> piece of software, after all, but that's the way it comes across).
Sorry for not being entirely clear.


I thought that my message was good enough, as the OpenStack documentation 
itself already talks about Pacemaker:

  http://docs.openstack.org/high-availability-guide/content/ch-pacemaker.html

  "OpenStack infrastructure high availability relies on the Pacemaker 
   cluster stack, the state-of-the-art high availability and load 
   balancing stack for the Linux platform. Pacemaker is storage and 
   application-agnostic, and is in no way specific to OpenStack."


Expanding on "what we have", "what GNU/Linux already has", and "what is 
being used for Linux (platform) HA", I wanted to point out that most of the 
parts for _one_ possible solution already exists.


Whether we want to go *that* route is yet to be decided, of course.