Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Running two independent clusters

2017-03-30 Thread Ken Gaillot 
On 03/30/2017 01:17 AM, Nikhil Utane wrote:
> "/Coincidentally, I am about to announce enhanced container support in/
> /pacemaker. I should have a post with more details later today or
> tomorrow./"
> 
> Ken: Where you able to get to it?
> 
> -Thanks
> Nikhil

Not yet, we've been tweaking the syntax a bit, so I wanted to have
something more final first. But it's very close.

> 
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Ken Gaillot  > wrote:
> 
> On 03/22/2017 11:08 PM, Nikhil Utane wrote:
> > I simplified when I called it as a service. Essentially it is a complete
> > system.
> > It is an LTE eNB solution. It provides LTE service (service A) and now
> > we need to provide redundancy for another different but related service
> > (service B). The catch being, the LTE redundancy solution will be tied
> > to one operator whereas the other service can span across multiple
> > operators. Therefore ideally we want two completely independent clusters
> > since different set of nodes will form the two clusters.
> > Now what I am thinking is, to run additional instance of Pacemaker +
> > Corosync in a container which can then notify the service B on host
> > machine to start or stop it's service. That way my CIB file will be
> > independent and I can run corosync on different interfaces.
> >
> > Workable right?
> >
> > -Regards
> > Nikhil
> 
> It's not well-tested, but in theory it should work, as long as the
> container is privileged.
> 
> I still think virtualizing the services would be more resilient. It
> makes sense to have a single determination of quorum and fencing for the
> same real hosts. I'd think of it like a cloud provider -- the cloud
> instances are segregated by customer, but the underlying hosts are
> the same.
> 
> You could configure your cluster as asymmetric, and enable each VM only
> on the nodes it's allowed on, so you get the two separate "clusters"
> that way. You could set up the VMs as guest nodes if you want to monitor
> and manage multiple services within them. If your services require
> hardware access that's not easily passed to a VM, containerizing the
> services might be a better option.
> 
> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Ken Gaillot  
> > >> wrote:
> >
> > On 03/22/2017 05:23 AM, Nikhil Utane wrote:
> > > Hi Ulrich,
> > >
> > > It's not an option unfortunately.
> > > Our product runs on a specialized hardware and provides both the
> > > services (A & B) that I am referring to. Hence I cannot have 
> service A
> > > running on some nodes as cluster A and service B running on other 
> nodes
> > > as cluster B.
> > > The two services HAVE to run on same node. The catch being 
> service A and
> > > service B have to be independent of each other.
> > >
> > > Hence looking at Container option since we are using that for 
> some other
> > > product (but not for Pacemaker/Corosync).
> > >
> > > -Regards
> > > Nikhil
> >
> > Instead of containerizing pacemaker, why don't you containerize or
> > virtualize the services, and have pacemaker manage the 
> containers/VMs?
> >
> > Coincidentally, I am about to announce enhanced container support in
> > pacemaker. I should have a post with more details later today or
> > tomorrow.
> >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Ulrich Windl
> > >  
> >  >
> > >  
> >   > >
> > > >>> Nikhil Utane  
>  >
> > >  
> >   schrieb am 22.03.2017 um 07:48 in
> > > Nachricht
> > >
> >  
>  
> > >
> > >     > >

Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Running two independent clusters

2017-03-30 Thread Nikhil Utane 
"*Coincidentally, I am about to announce enhanced container support in*
*pacemaker. I should have a post with more details later today or tomorrow.*
"

Ken: Where you able to get to it?

-Thanks
Nikhil

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Ken Gaillot  wrote:

> On 03/22/2017 11:08 PM, Nikhil Utane wrote:
> > I simplified when I called it as a service. Essentially it is a complete
> > system.
> > It is an LTE eNB solution. It provides LTE service (service A) and now
> > we need to provide redundancy for another different but related service
> > (service B). The catch being, the LTE redundancy solution will be tied
> > to one operator whereas the other service can span across multiple
> > operators. Therefore ideally we want two completely independent clusters
> > since different set of nodes will form the two clusters.
> > Now what I am thinking is, to run additional instance of Pacemaker +
> > Corosync in a container which can then notify the service B on host
> > machine to start or stop it's service. That way my CIB file will be
> > independent and I can run corosync on different interfaces.
> >
> > Workable right?
> >
> > -Regards
> > Nikhil
>
> It's not well-tested, but in theory it should work, as long as the
> container is privileged.
>
> I still think virtualizing the services would be more resilient. It
> makes sense to have a single determination of quorum and fencing for the
> same real hosts. I'd think of it like a cloud provider -- the cloud
> instances are segregated by customer, but the underlying hosts are the
> same.
>
> You could configure your cluster as asymmetric, and enable each VM only
> on the nodes it's allowed on, so you get the two separate "clusters"
> that way. You could set up the VMs as guest nodes if you want to monitor
> and manage multiple services within them. If your services require
> hardware access that's not easily passed to a VM, containerizing the
> services might be a better option.
>
> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Ken Gaillot  > > wrote:
> >
> > On 03/22/2017 05:23 AM, Nikhil Utane wrote:
> > > Hi Ulrich,
> > >
> > > It's not an option unfortunately.
> > > Our product runs on a specialized hardware and provides both the
> > > services (A & B) that I am referring to. Hence I cannot have
> service A
> > > running on some nodes as cluster A and service B running on other
> nodes
> > > as cluster B.
> > > The two services HAVE to run on same node. The catch being service
> A and
> > > service B have to be independent of each other.
> > >
> > > Hence looking at Container option since we are using that for some
> other
> > > product (but not for Pacemaker/Corosync).
> > >
> > > -Regards
> > > Nikhil
> >
> > Instead of containerizing pacemaker, why don't you containerize or
> > virtualize the services, and have pacemaker manage the
> containers/VMs?
> >
> > Coincidentally, I am about to announce enhanced container support in
> > pacemaker. I should have a post with more details later today or
> > tomorrow.
> >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Ulrich Windl
> > >  > 
> > >  > >> wrote:
> > >
> > > >>> Nikhil Utane 
> > >  > >> schrieb am 22.03.2017 um
> 07:48 in
> > > Nachricht
> > >
> >   > 
> > > >>:
> > > > Hi All,
> > > >
> > > > First of all, let me thank everyone here for providing
> > excellent support
> > > > from the time I started evaluating this tool about a year
> > ago. It has
> > > > helped me to make a timely and good quality release of our
> > Redundancy
> > > > solution using Pacemaker & Corosync. (Three cheers :))
> > > >
> > > > Now for our next release we have a slightly different ask.
> > > > We want to provide Redundancy to two different types of
> > services (we can
> > > > call them Service A and Service B) such that all cluster
> > communication for
> > > > Service A happens on one network/interface (say VLAN A) and
> > for service B
> > > > happens on a different network/interface (say VLAN B).
> > Moreover we do not
> > > > want the details of Service A (resource attributes etc) to
> > be seen by
> > > > Service B and vice-versa.
> > > >
> > > > So essentially we want to be able to run two independent
> >

Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Running two independent clusters

2017-03-23 Thread Ken Gaillot 
On 03/22/2017 11:08 PM, Nikhil Utane wrote:
> I simplified when I called it as a service. Essentially it is a complete
> system.
> It is an LTE eNB solution. It provides LTE service (service A) and now
> we need to provide redundancy for another different but related service
> (service B). The catch being, the LTE redundancy solution will be tied
> to one operator whereas the other service can span across multiple
> operators. Therefore ideally we want two completely independent clusters
> since different set of nodes will form the two clusters.
> Now what I am thinking is, to run additional instance of Pacemaker +
> Corosync in a container which can then notify the service B on host
> machine to start or stop it's service. That way my CIB file will be
> independent and I can run corosync on different interfaces.
> 
> Workable right?
> 
> -Regards
> Nikhil

It's not well-tested, but in theory it should work, as long as the
container is privileged.

I still think virtualizing the services would be more resilient. It
makes sense to have a single determination of quorum and fencing for the
same real hosts. I'd think of it like a cloud provider -- the cloud
instances are segregated by customer, but the underlying hosts are the same.

You could configure your cluster as asymmetric, and enable each VM only
on the nodes it's allowed on, so you get the two separate "clusters"
that way. You could set up the VMs as guest nodes if you want to monitor
and manage multiple services within them. If your services require
hardware access that's not easily passed to a VM, containerizing the
services might be a better option.

> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Ken Gaillot  > wrote:
> 
> On 03/22/2017 05:23 AM, Nikhil Utane wrote:
> > Hi Ulrich,
> >
> > It's not an option unfortunately.
> > Our product runs on a specialized hardware and provides both the
> > services (A & B) that I am referring to. Hence I cannot have service A
> > running on some nodes as cluster A and service B running on other nodes
> > as cluster B.
> > The two services HAVE to run on same node. The catch being service A and
> > service B have to be independent of each other.
> >
> > Hence looking at Container option since we are using that for some other
> > product (but not for Pacemaker/Corosync).
> >
> > -Regards
> > Nikhil
> 
> Instead of containerizing pacemaker, why don't you containerize or
> virtualize the services, and have pacemaker manage the containers/VMs?
> 
> Coincidentally, I am about to announce enhanced container support in
> pacemaker. I should have a post with more details later today or
> tomorrow.
> 
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Ulrich Windl
> >  
> >  >> wrote:
> >
> > >>> Nikhil Utane  
> >  >> schrieb am 22.03.2017 um 07:48 in
> > Nachricht
> >   
>   
> > >>:
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > First of all, let me thank everyone here for providing
> excellent support
> > > from the time I started evaluating this tool about a year
> ago. It has
> > > helped me to make a timely and good quality release of our
> Redundancy
> > > solution using Pacemaker & Corosync. (Three cheers :))
> > >
> > > Now for our next release we have a slightly different ask.
> > > We want to provide Redundancy to two different types of
> services (we can
> > > call them Service A and Service B) such that all cluster
> communication for
> > > Service A happens on one network/interface (say VLAN A) and
> for service B
> > > happens on a different network/interface (say VLAN B).
> Moreover we do not
> > > want the details of Service A (resource attributes etc) to
> be seen by
> > > Service B and vice-versa.
> > >
> > > So essentially we want to be able to run two independent
> clusters. From
> > > what I gathered, we cannot run multiple instances of
> Pacemaker and Corosync
> > > on same node. I was thinking if we can use Containers and
> run two isolated
> >
> > You conclude from two services that should not see each other that
> > you need to instances of pacemaker on one node. Why?
> > If you want true separation, drop the VLANs, make real
> networks and
> > two

Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Running two independent clusters

2017-03-22 Thread Nikhil Utane 
I simplified when I called it as a service. Essentially it is a complete
system.
It is an LTE eNB solution. It provides LTE service (service A) and now we
need to provide redundancy for another different but related service
(service B). The catch being, the LTE redundancy solution will be tied to
one operator whereas the other service can span across multiple operators.
Therefore ideally we want two completely independent clusters since
different set of nodes will form the two clusters.
Now what I am thinking is, to run additional instance of Pacemaker +
Corosync in a container which can then notify the service B on host machine
to start or stop it's service. That way my CIB file will be independent and
I can run corosync on different interfaces.

Workable right?

-Regards
Nikhil


On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Ken Gaillot  wrote:

> On 03/22/2017 05:23 AM, Nikhil Utane wrote:
> > Hi Ulrich,
> >
> > It's not an option unfortunately.
> > Our product runs on a specialized hardware and provides both the
> > services (A & B) that I am referring to. Hence I cannot have service A
> > running on some nodes as cluster A and service B running on other nodes
> > as cluster B.
> > The two services HAVE to run on same node. The catch being service A and
> > service B have to be independent of each other.
> >
> > Hence looking at Container option since we are using that for some other
> > product (but not for Pacemaker/Corosync).
> >
> > -Regards
> > Nikhil
>
> Instead of containerizing pacemaker, why don't you containerize or
> virtualize the services, and have pacemaker manage the containers/VMs?
>
> Coincidentally, I am about to announce enhanced container support in
> pacemaker. I should have a post with more details later today or tomorrow.
>
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Ulrich Windl
> >  > > wrote:
> >
> > >>> Nikhil Utane  > > schrieb am 22.03.2017 um
> 07:48 in
> > Nachricht
> >  > >:
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > First of all, let me thank everyone here for providing excellent
> support
> > > from the time I started evaluating this tool about a year ago. It
> has
> > > helped me to make a timely and good quality release of our
> Redundancy
> > > solution using Pacemaker & Corosync. (Three cheers :))
> > >
> > > Now for our next release we have a slightly different ask.
> > > We want to provide Redundancy to two different types of services
> (we can
> > > call them Service A and Service B) such that all cluster
> communication for
> > > Service A happens on one network/interface (say VLAN A) and for
> service B
> > > happens on a different network/interface (say VLAN B). Moreover we
> do not
> > > want the details of Service A (resource attributes etc) to be seen
> by
> > > Service B and vice-versa.
> > >
> > > So essentially we want to be able to run two independent clusters.
> From
> > > what I gathered, we cannot run multiple instances of Pacemaker and
> Corosync
> > > on same node. I was thinking if we can use Containers and run two
> isolated
> >
> > You conclude from two services that should not see each other that
> > you need to instances of pacemaker on one node. Why?
> > If you want true separation, drop the VLANs, make real networks and
> > two independent clusters.
> > Even if two pacemeaker on one node would work, you habe the problem
> > of fencing, where at least one pacemaker instance will always be
> > surprised badly if fencing takes place. I cannot imaging you want
> that!
> >
> > > instances of Pacemaker + Corosync on same node.
> > > As per https://github.com/davidvossel/pacemaker_docker
> >  it looks do-able.
> > > I wanted to get an opinion on this forum before I can commit that
> it can be
> > > done.
> >
> > Why are you designing it more complicated as necessary?
> >
> > >
> > > Please share your views if you have already done this and if there
> are any
> > > known challenges that I should be familiar with.
> > >
> > > -Thanks
> > > Nikhil
>
> ___
> Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
> http://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
>
___
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
http://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
Bugs:

Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Running two independent clusters

2017-03-22 Thread Ken Gaillot 
On 03/22/2017 05:23 AM, Nikhil Utane wrote:
> Hi Ulrich,
> 
> It's not an option unfortunately.
> Our product runs on a specialized hardware and provides both the
> services (A & B) that I am referring to. Hence I cannot have service A
> running on some nodes as cluster A and service B running on other nodes
> as cluster B.
> The two services HAVE to run on same node. The catch being service A and
> service B have to be independent of each other.
> 
> Hence looking at Container option since we are using that for some other
> product (but not for Pacemaker/Corosync).
> 
> -Regards
> Nikhil

Instead of containerizing pacemaker, why don't you containerize or
virtualize the services, and have pacemaker manage the containers/VMs?

Coincidentally, I am about to announce enhanced container support in
pacemaker. I should have a post with more details later today or tomorrow.

> 
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Ulrich Windl
>  > wrote:
> 
> >>> Nikhil Utane  > schrieb am 22.03.2017 um 07:48 in
> Nachricht
>  >:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > First of all, let me thank everyone here for providing excellent support
> > from the time I started evaluating this tool about a year ago. It has
> > helped me to make a timely and good quality release of our Redundancy
> > solution using Pacemaker & Corosync. (Three cheers :))
> >
> > Now for our next release we have a slightly different ask.
> > We want to provide Redundancy to two different types of services (we can
> > call them Service A and Service B) such that all cluster communication 
> for
> > Service A happens on one network/interface (say VLAN A) and for service 
> B
> > happens on a different network/interface (say VLAN B). Moreover we do 
> not
> > want the details of Service A (resource attributes etc) to be seen by
> > Service B and vice-versa.
> >
> > So essentially we want to be able to run two independent clusters. From
> > what I gathered, we cannot run multiple instances of Pacemaker and 
> Corosync
> > on same node. I was thinking if we can use Containers and run two 
> isolated
> 
> You conclude from two services that should not see each other that
> you need to instances of pacemaker on one node. Why?
> If you want true separation, drop the VLANs, make real networks and
> two independent clusters.
> Even if two pacemeaker on one node would work, you habe the problem
> of fencing, where at least one pacemaker instance will always be
> surprised badly if fencing takes place. I cannot imaging you want that!
> 
> > instances of Pacemaker + Corosync on same node.
> > As per https://github.com/davidvossel/pacemaker_docker
>  it looks do-able.
> > I wanted to get an opinion on this forum before I can commit that it 
> can be
> > done.
> 
> Why are you designing it more complicated as necessary?
> 
> >
> > Please share your views if you have already done this and if there are 
> any
> > known challenges that I should be familiar with.
> >
> > -Thanks
> > Nikhil

___
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
http://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org

Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Running two independent clusters

2017-03-22 Thread Klaus Wenninger 
On 03/22/2017 11:23 AM, Nikhil Utane wrote:
> Hi Ulrich,
>
> It's not an option unfortunately.
> Our product runs on a specialized hardware and provides both the
> services (A & B) that I am referring to. Hence I cannot have service A
> running on some nodes as cluster A and service B running on other
> nodes as cluster B.
> The two services HAVE to run on same node. The catch being service A
> and service B have to be independent of each other.
>
> Hence looking at Container option since we are using that for some
> other product (but not for Pacemaker/Corosync).

I don't know what the official statements are but I have been running up
to 15 Pacemaker (1.1.10)/Corosync-Instances(1.4.7)
with a product years ago using lxc (basically as docker using the
namespaces the linux-kernel provides) and that worked fairly well.
I just had to allow a certain CPU-percentage within a container to be
RT-scheduled for corosync to start properly.

Maybe you could tackle the fencing issue Ulrich has addressed by
introduction of 2 fencing-levels. The 1st one going for
docker-instances and the 2nd (lower prio) going for the nodes. So as
long as fencing the container does the trick the 2nd cluster
won't be involved and once this doesn't work it will go for the node
itself and you will suffer from the probably anyway
inevitable consequences.

Regards,
Klaus
 
>
> -Regards
> Nikhil
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Ulrich Windl
>  > wrote:
>
> >>> Nikhil Utane  > schrieb am 22.03.2017 um
> 07:48 in
> Nachricht
>  >:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > First of all, let me thank everyone here for providing excellent
> support
> > from the time I started evaluating this tool about a year ago.
> It has
> > helped me to make a timely and good quality release of our
> Redundancy
> > solution using Pacemaker & Corosync. (Three cheers :))
> >
> > Now for our next release we have a slightly different ask.
> > We want to provide Redundancy to two different types of services
> (we can
> > call them Service A and Service B) such that all cluster
> communication for
> > Service A happens on one network/interface (say VLAN A) and for
> service B
> > happens on a different network/interface (say VLAN B). Moreover
> we do not
> > want the details of Service A (resource attributes etc) to be
> seen by
> > Service B and vice-versa.
> >
> > So essentially we want to be able to run two independent
> clusters. From
> > what I gathered, we cannot run multiple instances of Pacemaker
> and Corosync
> > on same node. I was thinking if we can use Containers and run
> two isolated
>
> You conclude from two services that should not see each other that
> you need to instances of pacemaker on one node. Why?
> If you want true separation, drop the VLANs, make real networks
> and two independent clusters.
> Even if two pacemeaker on one node would work, you habe the
> problem of fencing, where at least one pacemaker instance will
> always be surprised badly if fencing takes place. I cannot imaging
> you want that!
>
> > instances of Pacemaker + Corosync on same node.
> > As per https://github.com/davidvossel/pacemaker_docker
>  it looks do-able.
> > I wanted to get an opinion on this forum before I can commit
> that it can be
> > done.
>
> Why are you designing it more complicated as necessary?
>
> >
> > Please share your views if you have already done this and if
> there are any
> > known challenges that I should be familiar with.
> >
> > -Thanks
> > Nikhil
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
> 
> http://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> 
>
> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
> Getting started:
> http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
> 
> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
> http://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org



___
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
http://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started:

Re: [ClusterLabs] Antw: Running two independent clusters

2017-03-22 Thread Nikhil Utane 
Hi Ulrich,

It's not an option unfortunately.
Our product runs on a specialized hardware and provides both the services
(A & B) that I am referring to. Hence I cannot have service A running on
some nodes as cluster A and service B running on other nodes as cluster B.
The two services HAVE to run on same node. The catch being service A and
service B have to be independent of each other.

Hence looking at Container option since we are using that for some other
product (but not for Pacemaker/Corosync).

-Regards
Nikhil


On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Ulrich Windl <
ulrich.wi...@rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote:

> >>> Nikhil Utane  schrieb am 22.03.2017 um
> 07:48 in
> Nachricht
> :
> > Hi All,
> >
> > First of all, let me thank everyone here for providing excellent support
> > from the time I started evaluating this tool about a year ago. It has
> > helped me to make a timely and good quality release of our Redundancy
> > solution using Pacemaker & Corosync. (Three cheers :))
> >
> > Now for our next release we have a slightly different ask.
> > We want to provide Redundancy to two different types of services (we can
> > call them Service A and Service B) such that all cluster communication
> for
> > Service A happens on one network/interface (say VLAN A) and for service B
> > happens on a different network/interface (say VLAN B). Moreover we do not
> > want the details of Service A (resource attributes etc) to be seen by
> > Service B and vice-versa.
> >
> > So essentially we want to be able to run two independent clusters. From
> > what I gathered, we cannot run multiple instances of Pacemaker and
> Corosync
> > on same node. I was thinking if we can use Containers and run two
> isolated
>
> You conclude from two services that should not see each other that you
> need to instances of pacemaker on one node. Why?
> If you want true separation, drop the VLANs, make real networks and two
> independent clusters.
> Even if two pacemeaker on one node would work, you habe the problem of
> fencing, where at least one pacemaker instance will always be surprised
> badly if fencing takes place. I cannot imaging you want that!
>
> > instances of Pacemaker + Corosync on same node.
> > As per https://github.com/davidvossel/pacemaker_docker it looks do-able.
> > I wanted to get an opinion on this forum before I can commit that it can
> be
> > done.
>
> Why are you designing it more complicated as necessary?
>
> >
> > Please share your views if you have already done this and if there are
> any
> > known challenges that I should be familiar with.
> >
> > -Thanks
> > Nikhil
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
> http://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
>
___
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
http://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org

[ClusterLabs] Antw: Running two independent clusters

2017-03-22 Thread Ulrich Windl 
>>> Nikhil Utane  schrieb am 22.03.2017 um 07:48 in
Nachricht
:
> Hi All,
> 
> First of all, let me thank everyone here for providing excellent support
> from the time I started evaluating this tool about a year ago. It has
> helped me to make a timely and good quality release of our Redundancy
> solution using Pacemaker & Corosync. (Three cheers :))
> 
> Now for our next release we have a slightly different ask.
> We want to provide Redundancy to two different types of services (we can
> call them Service A and Service B) such that all cluster communication for
> Service A happens on one network/interface (say VLAN A) and for service B
> happens on a different network/interface (say VLAN B). Moreover we do not
> want the details of Service A (resource attributes etc) to be seen by
> Service B and vice-versa.
> 
> So essentially we want to be able to run two independent clusters. From
> what I gathered, we cannot run multiple instances of Pacemaker and Corosync
> on same node. I was thinking if we can use Containers and run two isolated

You conclude from two services that should not see each other that you need to 
instances of pacemaker on one node. Why?
If you want true separation, drop the VLANs, make real networks and two 
independent clusters.
Even if two pacemeaker on one node would work, you habe the problem of fencing, 
where at least one pacemaker instance will always be surprised badly if fencing 
takes place. I cannot imaging you want that!

> instances of Pacemaker + Corosync on same node.
> As per https://github.com/davidvossel/pacemaker_docker it looks do-able.
> I wanted to get an opinion on this forum before I can commit that it can be
> done.

Why are you designing it more complicated as necessary?

> 
> Please share your views if you have already done this and if there are any
> known challenges that I should be familiar with.
> 
> -Thanks
> Nikhil





___
Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org
http://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org