A WSFC and Pacemaker are more similar than different. Both provide a way to take individual servers and combine them in a configuration to provide availability, and have concepts of things like resources, constraints (even if implemented differently), failover, and so on. To support Pacemaker for both availability group and FCI configurations including things like automatic failover, Microsoft provides the mssql-server-ha package, which is similar to, but not exactly the same as the resource DLLs in a WSFC, for Pacemaker. One of the differences between a WSFC and Pacemaker is that there's no network name resource in Pacemaker, which is the component that helps to abstract the name of the listener (or the name of the FCI) on a WSFC. DNS provides that name resolution on Linux.
0 commit comments