HP Service Guard versus Redhat Clustering

[Ragni Singh]

Hi all, we all here are trying to determine which is a better clustering product. What are the pros and cons. Any input here will be most greatly appreciated.

[Steven E. Protter]

Clustering seems to be based on the same basic principles.

I'm in the slow process of deploying both SG at work Red Hat for my private business.

I've done the HP course and find SG very mature, manageable and useful. I'm still in the reading stage with Red Hat.

Red Hat based their product on the piranha product set if I am not mistaken. Its got the bugs worked out and works on more varied hardware than SG. SG from HP only works on server classes of boxes on the HP-9000 side and the Intel side.

As Mr. Scott said in Star Trek V, the right tool for the right job.

SEP

[Jeroen Peereboom]

In case you are thinking of Oracle Real Application Clustering: on Linux one uses Oracle Cluster Manager software.

JP

[dirk dierickx]

If serviceguard on linux is like serviceguard onm hpux keep in mind that it will require you to probably recompile the kernel or at least compile some kernel modules.
You should keep this in mind, since every time you do an update of the linux kernel (because of security issues or bugs) you will need to recompile those modules (or kernel) again.
The RH cluster tool doesn't need you to do that.

[Serviceguard for Linux]

The current version of Serviceguard for Linux does NOT require a recompile of the kernel.

http://www.hp.com/go/sglx has the latest info - although the certification matrix and config guide are due for a update

[Vitaly Karasik_1]

2 SEP - RH Clsuter Manager HA cluster is based on Kimberlite project [http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-AS-2.1-Manual/cluster-manager/ch-acknowledge.html]

I see the big advantage of RH Clsuter Manager in hardware independency; and for ServiceGuard you have to work with HP servers/storage.

Rgds,
Vitaly