SLES High Availability Solution for HANA 2.0


We have SAP HANA2.0 installed on SLES over IBM Power8 Server with ppc64le arch

PRETTY_NAME=“SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 12 SP1”

We require to make SAP HANA highly available using High Availability Solution provided by SuSe as PoC.

How can we achieve the same like is the OS support there, or newer version needed or specific HANA version supported, etc ?

Any help will be highly appreciated.


It appears that in the past few days you have not received a response to your
posting. That concerns us, and has triggered this automated reply.

These forums are peer-to-peer, best effort, volunteer run and that if your issue
is urgent or not getting a response, you might try one of the following options:

Be sure to read the forum FAQ about what to expect in the way of responses:

If this is a reply to a duplicate posting or otherwise posted in error, please
ignore and accept our apologies and rest assured we will issue a stern reprimand
to our posting bot…

Good luck!

Your SUSE Forums Team

[{“insert”:“We have implemented “},{“attributes”:{“bold”:true},“insert”:“SLES for SAP v15”},{“insert”:” with the HA solution (”},{“attributes”:{“bold”:true},“insert”:“pacemaker”},{“insert”:", “},{“attributes”:{“bold”:true},“insert”:“corosync”},{“insert”:”) for HANA 2.0 on Power9 ("},{“attributes”:{“bold”:true},“insert”:“ppc64le”},{“insert”:")
In brief,\

  1. Use “},{“attributes”:{“bold”:true},“insert”:“stonith”},{“insert”:”; share three 1GB disks between Cluster members; do not format them, use "},{“attributes”:{“bold”:true},“insert”:“multipath”},{“insert”:"ing with the same device names on all nodes, and configure “},{“attributes”:{“bold”:true},“insert”:“sbd”},{“insert”:” using defaults; don’t forget to initialize the disks from one node\
  2. Corosync has to be able to perform a passwordless login as “},{“attributes”:{“bold”:true},“insert”:“root”},{“insert”:” between nodes; it is idiotic, so use your ability to configure “},{“attributes”:{“bold”:true},“insert”:“sshd”},{“insert”:” to limit that (for example, use a “},{“attributes”:{“bold”:true},“insert”:“Match”},{“insert”:” block to restrict by IP address, “},{“attributes”:{“italic”:true},“insert”:“etc”},{“insert”:”) default timeouts are fine\
  3. Pacemaker defaults to wanting to use “},{“attributes”:{“italic”:true},“insert”:“multicast”},{“insert”:”, but unless there is a specific technical reason driving use of “},{“attributes”:{“italic”:true},“insert”:“multicast”},{“insert”:”, “},{“attributes”:{“bold”:true},“insert”:“totem”},{“insert”:” works just as well with “},{“attributes”:{“italic”:true},“insert”:“unicast”},{“insert”:”; default timeouts should be fine, if implementing a 2-node cluster, read the docs about that carefully, you need to use special quorum\/voting config; “},{“attributes”:{“bold”:true},“insert”:“do NOT allow the HANA DBAs to initiate failover from inside HANA”},{“insert”:”!!! All cluster operations should utilize the cluster management tools (such as “},{“attributes”:{“bold”:true},“insert”:“crm”},{“insert”:”)\
  4. Use a dedicated network interface (preferably a “},{“attributes”:{“bold”:true},“insert”:“bond”},{“insert”:”) for node-to-node communications (that is, the Pacemaker and Corosync connectivity)

As a followup to my 5/5 reply, I’m no longer so sure about using crm exclusively (#3) - we’ve been revising our thinking that perhaps initiating the fail-over via Hawk is better.

I wish SAP and SuSE would get together on that and make a definitive statement.