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 <nikhil.subscri...@gmail.com> schrieb am 22.03.2017 um > 07:48 in > Nachricht > <CAGNWmJV05-YG+f9VNG0Deu-2xo7Lp+kRQPOn9sWYy7Jz=0g...@mail.gmail.com>: > > 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