Description of problem:
As part of an initiative to develop a formal process for Red Hat to perform cluster architecture reviews through support prior to deployment of a Cluster/clustered storage, the product documentation shall state that recommendation.
"If you are deploying RHEL AP Cluster or GFS, please work with Red Hat
support to validate your cluster architecture and configuration prior to
deployment by <insert process here>"
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Steps to Reproduce:
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in a Red
Hat Enterprise Linux major release. Product Management has requested further
review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for potential inclusion in a Red
Hat Enterprise Linux Major release. This request is not yet committed for
Adding Jeremy West as NEEDINFO, as he is working with the cluster specialty team within GSS who will be contributing SMEs here. Jeremy?
I have asked the following folks in the GSS cluster specialty group to help review:
* Shane Bradley
* Christine Caulfield
* John Ruemker
* Adam Drew
* Ben Turner
So far I've gotten some good feedback from them and have forwarded that to cluster-pm-list. If you wish to follow up with them on any of that feedback, please feel free to email them directly.
As an update: The kbase article references by Perry in Comment 8 "has been archived and is currently unavailable".
Is it possible that this bug could be incorporated into BZ 641409, the general RHEL HA documentation overhaul bug?
Since this is a doc-Cluster_Administration bug, I'm re-assigning it to me, but I still think the resolution of this bug is simply to incorporate it into BZ#641409, as it is part of the general and ongoing documentation revamp. For now I'm moving this to RHEL 6.2 to give us time to fully address this and be sure we don't lose the information in this bug. There are certainly no specific things in the documentation to correct that this BZ resolves, however, so moving it to RHEL 6.2 should not be a problem.
I think that this bug has been addressed by the issues raised in BZ#718083, which suggests we link directly to the kbase article with the noted information directly. So I'm marking this as a duplicate of that Bug.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 718083 ***