On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 09:24 +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > On May 19, 2008, at 9:07 AM, Nitin wrote: > > > On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 08:34 +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > >> On May 19, 2008, at 7:14 AM, Nitin wrote: > >> > >>> On Fri, 2008-05-16 at 15:08 +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > >>>> On May 16, 2008, at 3:04 PM, Nitin wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hello, > >>>>> > >>>>> I would like to make my virtual machines (DomUs) resources to > >>>>> participate in the HA cluster. Dom0 (Physical Host) may or may not > >>>>> have > >>>>> resources. > >>>>> > >>>>> To do this I would like to treat DomUs as *resource* in the > >>>>> cluster as > >>>>> opposed to treating them as *nodes*. I am planning to write OCF > >>>>> resource > >>>>> agents for virtual machines. But I am not very sure about how to > >>>>> make a > >>>>> resource's resource to participate in the cluster. > >>>>> > >>>>> Is there any configuration in existing structure to achieve this?? > >>>>> If no > >>>>> then please tell me how to go about creating a "container" > >>>>> resource in > >>>>> CRM. > >>>> > >>>> Why not just use the Xen agent if you don't want them to be cluster > >>>> nodes? > >>>> Or do you mean that you want them to both be resources and to run > >>>> other resources too? > >>> > >>> Yes. Please advise me how to go about it. > >>> Thanks a lot for reply. > >> > >> We don't have a clean way to do that yet > >> > >> Possible options: > >> a) start the services at VM boot (you don't get monitoring) > >> b) start the services at VM boot and modify the Xen agent to monitor > >> the services inside the VM (ugly) > >> c) add a proxy resource to start/stop/monitor the services inside the > >> VM (complex) > > Did you mean writing a OCF RA which will take care of start/stop/ > > monitor inside VMs ?? > > right > > > > > Can we configure how CRM will handle resource failures in this case?? > > as far as the crm knows, its just another resource > > > > > For example if res1 at VM1 fails > > retry on same VM > > success --> OK > > failure --> start res1 (with group dependencies/collocation > > preferences) at VM2 on same node > > no - the cluster doesn't know that VM1 or VM2 is a cluster node. > so (for option 'c') the cluster will never allocate the resource to a > specific virtual machine - thats up to you. OK. Thanks!!!
I have small idea. Should we create a new policy under which we can define container resources (such as VMs). These container resources in turn can house other resources say "contained resources". Contained resources may have collocation/dependency constraints too. This way CRM would be aware of contained resources and will run them only on their containers. Does it make sense to you?? Thanks again. > > > > > (success -- OK) > > failure --> start res1 as direct resource to node > > .......... > > .......... > > > > finally use Passive node's VM > > > > > > > >> d) implement a generic version of c) > > I guess it would be required otherwise we have to write a proxy > > resource > > (c) for each resource type. Right?? > > depends on what your needs are > > > > > > >> e) have the VM join the cluster (makes stonith and quorum > >> "interesting") > >> f) wait for us to implement clusters-of-clusters which also solves > >> this scenario "for free" > >> g) something else i've not thought of > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Pacemaker mailing list > >> Pacemaker@clusterlabs.org > >> http://list.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pacemaker mailing list > > Pacemaker@clusterlabs.org > > http://list.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker > > > _______________________________________________ > Pacemaker mailing list > Pacemaker@clusterlabs.org > http://list.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@clusterlabs.org http://list.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
