On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Russell Bryant <[email protected]> wrote: > > I wanted to share the idea before I code it to see if it makes sense. > I imagine the patch would be small, though. > > We currently provide HA for ovn-northd by using Pacemaker to ensure > that ovn-northd is running only one time somewhere in a cluster. > > What if we made ovn-northd acquire an OVSDB lock on the southbound > database before it did any real work? That way we could start > multiple copies of ovn-northd in a cluster, but only one would be > active at a time. > > This is crude, and obviously we would want to distribute work among > ovn-northd instances eventually, but does this sound like an > improvement over requiring something like Pacemaker? > Russell, this sounds very good. I think it is better than Pacemaker. I would still call it active-standby though. The standby is hot-standby, not cold-standby.
It seems the change would be having the active one updating <timestamp, northd hostname> periodically to southbound DB, so that other northd will know if it is still alive, and otherwise taking over by updating the <timestamp, northd hostname>. Is this correct? _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
