Yes, good point Tom. I had actually meant to switch to syslog logging, but hadn't gotten to it yet. I've heard spread is excellent, and we're beginning to look at it for a few other things as well, so we'll see.
As for servers, the 16 limit is interesting. Or rather, somewhat confounding. I guess they expect you to move to a different system if you are managing a lot more servers as part of a cluster, or that you'd do direct attached storage, etc.? On 6/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jun 7, 11:08 pm, Ezra Zygmuntowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jun 7, 2007, at 10:43 PM, Chris Bailey wrote: > > > > The servers in this case are 64bit boxes, with dual cores, and GigE > > > (dual, but for this discussion assume a single one, since we split > > > the net on them, etc.). Also, our application file storage is done > > > using a different infrastructure, so it doesn't play into this. > > > Databases are also on different boxes. > > > > > I have not used GFS before, so I'm hoping for some input on some of > > > these questions: > > > > > - I presume that for the actual Rails application code, since it > > > gets loaded up once in production mode, that say 20 servers pulling > > > that from a single GNBD/GFS file system server would be no biggy. > > > Correct? > > > > Yeah it's no biggy. > > Hate to disagree with one of our own, but you'll find that the RHCS > has a practical limit of 16 machines per cluster, unless you're using > the GULM, which is no longer recommended. :-) > > At Engine Yard we sidestep this limitation by utilizing a two-tiered > cluster structure, one for the nodes in the cluster, and one for each > customer environment. > > > > - Logs - this seems to be the danger area to me. Assuming we have > > > "high traffic", and that we do quite a bit of logging (we log a > > > lot of info for metrics and ability to follow requests through the > > > SOA architecture, etc.), I worry about 20 servers all writing to a > > > single log on the one GNBD/GFS server. Valid worry, or? Are there > > > alternatives I should look at for logging in such an environment? > > I'd recommend aggregating the logs via something akin to syslog or > something based upon the wonderful but underutilized Spread library. > > Far simpler and more robust. > > GFS is great, don't get me wrong, but I can absolutely guarantee you > that you'll be disappointed if you put 50 machines into a single RHCS > cluster. > > -- > -- Tom Mornini, CTO > -- Engine Yard, Inc. > > > > > -- Chris Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Deploying Rails" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-deployment@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-deployment?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
