Which messaging layer to use, Heartbeat or Corosync?

Question

Just about finished my research into setting up a web server cluster and I'm still undecided as to which messaging layer to use with Pacemaker. The servers I'm using are all Fedora so both layers are available via YUM, both are well documented and are said to work well with Pacemaker. What I haven't been able to find is an opinion on which one is better. Does anyone have experience with both of these and also have a preference as to which one is better? Does one have a larger community support base? Is one more stable then the other? Or is this an arbitrary decision?

Solution

Ok seeing as how there's nothing but tumbleweeds gusting through this thread I went out a did the legwork myself. I've made the decision to go with Corosync for the following reasons:

• Corosync is a newer project (based on openais) and seems to be the 'future' for messaging layers
• Hearbeat looks like it will be maintained for quite a while longer but ultimately could be mothballed
• Corosync supports a few more features in Pacemaker then Heartbeat does not, I'm undecided if these features will be needed on my current project but having the choice is nice.

The following discussions helped me make my decision:

http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linuxha/pacemaker/71053

http://answerpot.com/showthread.php?124007-Heartbeat+vs+OpenAIS

Corosync site: http://corosync.github.io/corosync/

Heartbeat site: http://www.linux-ha.org/wiki/Main_Page

Comments

[Burhan Ali]

It looks like you were right about the mothballing. The Heartbeat site looks abandoned with the last content change on the wiki in 2010. Whereas Corosync is still active. Thanks for taking the time to research this.