On 16/11/13 00:07, Georgy Okrokvertskhov wrote:
Hi,
With slight modifications of (2) one can benefit of availability:
1. There should not be a master node. Each heat engine should be able to
act as a master if someone asks it to deploy a template. Current master
engine will be responsible to contact other engines and pass them the
same template and wait for confirmation.
2. Each Heat engine instance receives whole template but deploys only
resources which are designated to engine's zone
This will provide all benefits of availability as all engines will keep
a copy of a template and you can update template by using any heat
engine. For example if heat engine in region 1 is down or whole site 1
is down you can update a template with new region settings and update it
with using heat engine in region 2.
What you're describing is basically Option (5) - build a globally
highly-available distributed Heat engine. I don't see how you can
describe that as a "slight modification", it's an entire research
project that is probably bigger in scope than everything else we have
to do in Icehouse put together. As stated previously, I am heavily -2 on
this idea.
The multi-region support proposal contains information and proposal for
"what" and "how" but does not describe "why". If we talk just about
multi-region placement support then option (4) works fine. If there is
an intension to build a solution for HA, DR, elastic scalability for
spike loads then we need to keep availability as a part of a design.
I think we should build a system that allows our users to manage
highly-available global apps, not try to build one ourselves.
cheers,
Zane.
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
