Hi, Amazon EC2 instances plus their EBS disks. Scalable, available, reliable (from my experience) and you can experiment for a few $'s a day.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Ira Abramov <[email protected] > wrote: > related to the Citrix-vs-VMware question, in the spirit of the times... > > I want to create a way to host a cheap HA solution for a web hosting > outfit. they are running a few pretty busy asymetric servers and want to > start improving that infrastructure. each machine holds several dozens > of virtual hosts. > > At the moment each server has its own local storage and mysql. every > part is a SPOF other than the minimal RAID and such things. > > I'm thinking: > * Move to a central non-virtual MySQL for the backend. > * have two servers go P2V and have those VMs hosted back on their > original hardwares (sadly this means some painful downtime), and find a > way to let them crash-migrate for HA (still trying to figure this out) > * Second stage, add a second MySQL in a master-master setup. > > I'd love to have two servers with symetrical setup, but as you can > guess, the virtual hots are dozens of different apps that are too > expensive to go and rewrite for clusters at this point, with the issues > of user-uploaded files having to be available to both Apaches, etc. > > Assuming we want the cheapest reliable solution, i.e. not a $6K-20K SAN > and FC, I am looking for an easier solution (easier on the pocket at > least). However NFS proved to be a disaster in such cases (high-load web > services), OCFS has not been nice to me with any setup other than maybe > Oracle clusters, and GFS also never ran smoothly in my tests. > > Also OCFS and GFS require a common disk, which at this budget would be a > Linux machine running an iSCSI target at best (or OpenNAS). > > Am I missing something? Can this kind of reliability be achieved without > shelling out big bucks? > > Of course, The other option is just separate the MySQL, have a third > machine rsync the files of the two (non virtual) servers every few > minutes and have the hosting farm's layer4 switch redirect to the > fallback if something happens. Not very "smart" nor scalable, but does > 70% of what we need till a bigger investment is required. > > your thoughts, as before, are welcome... > > Thanks, > Ira. > > -- > Can't catch me yet > Ira Abramov > http://ira.abramov.org/email/ > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-il mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il > -- Constant change is here to stay!
_______________________________________________ Linux-il mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
