So this may be another relatively noob question, but when designing a mesos cluster, is it basically as simple as the nodes connected by a switch? Since any of the nodes can be "master nodes" or acting as both master and slave, I am guessing there is no need for another head node as you would have with a traditional cluster design. But would each of the nodes then have to be connected to the external/institutional network?
My rough idea was for this small cluster to not be connected to the main institutional network but for my workstation to be connected to both the cluster's network as well as to the institutional network ________________________________________ From: CCAAT <[email protected]> Sent: June-19-15 4:57 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Thoughts and opinions in physically building a cluster On 06/19/2015 01:28 PM, Daniel Gaston wrote: > > On 19/06/2015 18:38, Oliver Nicholas wrote: >> Unless you have some true HA requirements, it seems intuitively >> wasteful to have 3 masters and 2 slaves (unless the cost of 5 nodes is >> inconsequential to you and you hate the environment). > Any particular reason not to have three nodes which are acting both as > master and slaves? > > None at all. I'm not a cluster or networking guru, and have only played with > mesos in > cloud-based settings so I wasn't sure how this would work. But it makes > sense, that way > the 'standby' masters are still participating in the zookeeper quorum while > still being > available to do real work as slave nodes. Daniel. There is no such thing as a 'cluster guru'. It's all 'seat of the pants' flying right now; so you are fine what you are doing and propose. If codes do not exist to meet your specific needs and goals, they can (should?) be created. I'm working on an architectural expansion Where nodes (virtual, actual or bare metal) migrate from master --> entrepreneur --> worker --> slave --> embedded (bare metal or specially attached hardware. I'm proposing to do all of this with the "Autonomy_Function" and decisions being made bottom_up as opposed to the current top_down dichotomy. I'm prolly going to have to 'fork codes' for a while to get things stable and then hope they are included; when other minds see the validity of the ideas. Surely one "box" can be set up as both master and slave. Moving slaves to masters, should be an automatic function and will prolly will be address in the future codes of mesos. PS: Keep pushing your ideas and do not take no for an answer! Mesos belongs to everybody..... hth, James
