> As much as you've invested time in creating your
> drawing, I'm not sure list members have (what I
> suspect is a lot more) time to give you an informed
> and accurate opinion about whether it's doable. :)
No worries, the drawing only took about 20 hours. :-) Just kidding.
Yeah, after looking at some of the other list posts, I kind of gathered
that maybe I was talking to the wrong crowd. (FWIW, the reason I asked
in this list is because I already asked in the Linux-HA list and Dejan
Muhamedagic said I might have better luck here.)
> Why not just build it and tell us the answer?
Well, I've lived in Nevada for about 35 years, so I've learned to leave
gambling to the tourists. :-) This is a production environment. I'm
afraid of doing something that would conflict with the exisiting
Corosync cluster, so I'm trying to be extra careful in advance to make
sure my ports and ring numbers are correct.
>> I want the new 3-node cluster to be configured such that node
>> CLUSTER2_A shares resource R1 with node CLUSTER2_C, and node
>> CLUSTER2_B shares resource R2 with node CLUSTER2_C. Node CLUSTER2_C
>> would be the failover for both resources.
> I might ask the question why not run R1 and R2 on the same
> node since in the event of a failure of both R1 and R2 on
> their respective nodes, all resources end up on CLUSTER2_C
> anyway?
Performance. If CLUSTER2_C actually ends up taking both resources, it
will be somewhat oversubcribed and database access will slow down for
users. This is a problem, but still prefereable to the system being
totally down, and it SHOULD never happen unless, for some reason,
servers CLUSTER2_A and CLUSTER2_B both go down at the same time.
Otherwise, if only one goes down at a time, then CLUSTER2_C takes over
for the failed node and performance continues relatively uneffected.
So the basic questions remain. Is the genereal scenario workable? And if
so, do my IPs, ports, and ring numbers, look correct?
My only problem is that I'm not sure if there is anyone in the list with
the wherewithal to answer. :-/
1. Do the ports and ring numbers
> The proposed configuration looks like this...
>
>
> Existing 2-Node Cluster
>
> |----(198.51.100.0/30)---|
> | |
> |---------------------| |---------------------|
> | eth2 | | eth2 |
> | | | |
> | CLUSTER1_A | | CLUSTER1_B |
> | | | |
> | eth0 eth1 | | eth0 eth1 |
> | |--bond0--| | | |--bond0--| |
> | | | | | |
> |---------------------| |---------------------|
> | |
> | |
> ----------------------------(192.168.10.0/24)------------------------
> | | |
> | | |
> |-----------------| |-----------------| |---------------------|
> | | | | | | | | |
> | |--bond0--| | | |--bond0--| | | |--bond0--| |
> | eth0 eth1 | | eth0 eth1 | | eth0 eth1 |
> | | | | | |
> | CLUSTER2_A | | CLUSTER2_B | | CLUSTER2_C |
> | | | | | |
> | eth2 | | eth3 | | eth3 eth2 |
> |-----------------| |-----------------| |---------------------|
> | | | |
> | |-(198.51.100.4/30)-| |
> | |
> |------(198.51.100.8/30)-----------------------------------|
>
> New 3-Node Cluster
>
>
> The interface sections on existing CLUSTER1 look like this...
>
> interface {
> ringnumber: 0
> bindnetaddr: 192.168.10.0
> mcastaddr: 226.94.1.1
> mcastport: 4000
> }
>
> interface {
> ringnumber: 1
> bindnetaddr: 198.51.100.0
> mcastaddr: 226.94.1.1
> mcastport: 4000
> }
>
> I'm thinking the interface sections on CLUSTER2 need to look like
> this...
>
>
> interface {
> ringnumber: 0
> bindnetaddr: 192.168.10.0
> mcastaddr: 226.94.1.2
> mcastport: 4002
> }
>
> interface {
> ringnumber: 1
> bindnetaddr: 198.51.100.4
> mcastaddr: 226.94.1.2
> mcastport: 4002
> }
> interface {
> ringnumber: 2
> bindnetaddr: 198.51.100.8
> mcastaddr: 226.94.1.2
> mcastport: 4002
> }
>
> Does that look correct? Is what I want to do doable?
>
> --
> Eric Robinson
>
>
> Disclaimer - October 21, 2010
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for open...@lists.linux-foundation.org. If you are not
the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute, copy or
alter this email. Any views or opinions presented in this email are
solely those of the author and might not represent those of Physicians'
Managed Care or Physician Select Management. Warning: Although
Physicians' Managed Care or Physician Select Management has taken
reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email,
the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising
from the use of this email or attachments.
> This disclaimer was added by Policy Patrol:
> http://www.policypatrol.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Openais mailing list
> Openais@lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openais
--
regards,
-tony
_______________________________________________
Openais mailing list
Openais@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openais
