Ah hah, this is exactly the sort of documentation I've been searching for.
Thank you very much for the info!
-J Fox
Andrew Beekhof wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 8:38 PM, Javier Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Greetings,
I am currently researching ways to implement a somewhat advanced cluster
scheme, and I can't seem to find any evidence of anyone else attempting a
similar setup. I'm curious if what I'm looking to do is even possible with
heartbeat.
The general idea is to have a cluster of 7 servers, sharing 5 sets of
resources - so, 5 active servers and a 'pool' of 2 idle servers.
no problem so far
The
cluster would be set up in such a way that if any of the 5 active servers is
put out of commission, one of the idle servers can take up its resources,
and, once the out-of-commission server is repaired, it joins the idle pool.
no problem
default-resource-stickiness = {some high number}
Conversely, no active server must ever take more than one set of resources
- that is to say, if Server-001 and Server-002 are active, and Server-002
dies, Server-001 should ignore this fact and let one of the idle servers
worry about it.
yep
rsc_colocation constraints with score = -INFINITY between the resources
For the sake of completeness, the resources involved would be IP addresses
and remotely-mounted disks (NFS/iSCSI), one each per 'set of resources'.
So, first off, does this plan make any sense? And more importantly, is
this something that could be accomplished with heartbeat? Any suggestions
or advice would be greatly appreciated.
Recommended reading:
http://clusterlabs.org/mw/Image:Configuration_Explained.pdf
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
