On 07/19/2013 09:16 AM, Wil Cooley wrote:
- Reports processed with "rrdgraph" seem like a big risk.
OK.
- The CA store seems highly vulnerable to race conditions, unless you have such a low rate of node provisioning you can guarantee serial access -- but you probably would not need an HA setup in that case.
I thought that only problem in this case could be two nodes simoultanously sending certificate request, which could cause the certs to get same serial, but couldn't that be solved just by issuing revocation for that serial?
- The filebucket I would expect to be risky -- seems like a high probability of attempted concurrent writes of the same file.
While? If one client connects only to one master per run?
You might consider an active/passive setup with a front-end load balancer, where one of the above data subsets is effectively read-only for the passive server. You could distribute the load by taking advantage of the ability to configure the various master roles (fileserver, catalog, inventory, filebucket, CA, etc.) with different hostnames and ports. It would still be a risk of corruption in a split-brain situation, but that's often (always?) a danger with shared-storage filesystems.
We don't have such a high volume environment but we do have two machines at our disposal. So why not set up LB instead of simple HA...
I'm still considering solutions, although one of the most easier to set up is simple HA through RHEL Cluster, with failover/failback in case of the primary node failure.
-- Jakov Sosic www.srce.unizg.hr -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
