On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 09:55 +0100, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > On 2013-03-13T20:13:30, "GGS (linux ha)" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Their configuration, resources, etc. are > > not intermingled, so we prefer not to > > configure them in a single setup. For > > simplicity we are using the R1 built > > into heartbeat and not CRM. > > What you want to do is very simple to do with a pacemaker based cluster > and very difficult to get right with multiple instances of heartbeat > (among other things: fencing, getting multiple instances to run in the > first place, etc).
That's the problem. We do not run a cluster of servers. Our logical unit is the software stack. (see below) > > > I don't mind the administrative overhead of > > putting a whole ha tree an compile a copy > > for each of my stacks. If that's what it > > takes that's what I'll do. > > So, to achieve simplicity, you're willing to pay a significant overhead > on complexity. That makes sense. There is nothing complex about keeping a copy of the software per stack. We are already doing that. Basically the common software runs as many instances as there are stacks and just uses different configuration files for each. > > You see to want to shoot yourself in the foot. Why? Most people think the unit is the server. We have servers capable of running 50-100 stacks. Our unit is the stack, which has a direct connection to the physical world (each controls specific equipment manned by specific people). Each stack is subject to its own rules, resources and downtime. As such we bring them up and down, do updates and configuration changes individually. If we were to have a single daemon in charge of all the stacks any maintenance would need to be coordinated across all the stacks. Bringing down pacemaker would affect everyone. In our 24x7 operation there is just no overlap. What I can't get is why heartbeat has things/paths hard coded. The norm is to be able to specify configuration options from the command line. Something like --cfg filename There is nothing inherently complex with the stack model, it is just not as common as the server model. I always laugh when people talk about having hundreds or thousands of servers, because switching to a stack model and proper utilization of hardware resources can save a ton of money. Thanks, Alberto > > > Regards, > Lars _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
