FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-25-2008, 09:32 PM
Bob
 
Default to cluster or not? what's best solution for 2-node HA?

Here's what I want:
I have a vmware server running on etch, hosting 4 VM's.
I want these 4 VM's to be hosted in such a way, that should anything
fail on 1 VM host, there is another providing seamless service. I want
to do this with the 2 pc's I already have, each with 2 NIC's, and no
other hardware.

My basic question - what's the best solution to accomplish this?

Here's what I've looked at:
drbd/HA (heartbeat) - allows you to raid1 a disk partition between 2
pc's over ethernet
issues: in the default primary/secondary failover config, if
primary fails, there is some period of time (even if only seconds),
required for the secondary to become primary - I can only assume this
would mean rebooting all the VM's.
however - you can run drbd in a primary/primary config - this
sounds like what I want. But it sounds like I need a clustering files
system to do this like GFS. After countless hours researching this,
I'm still not sure how to do it - do I need GFS? OCFS? NBD?

Now drbd isn't really a cluster, it's just raid1-ing 2 pc's - this
could be all I need.
But - would a REAL cluster be a better solution? I believe a cluster
could provide load balancing, or at least optimized use of all
available hard disk heads. Although, if drbd needs GFS, then in fact,
doesn't this become a real cluster?

What would a clustering solution look like?
which is the best filesystem to use - GFS/OCFS ?
would drbd still be needed if GFS is used?

Any ideas, experiences, help - greatly appreciated!
TIA - Bob


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 07-25-2008, 11:09 PM
Ron Johnson
 
Default to cluster or not? what's best solution for 2-node HA?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 07/25/08 16:32, Bob wrote:
> Here's what I want:
> I have a vmware server running on etch, hosting 4 VM's.
> I want these 4 VM's to be hosted in such a way, that should anything
> fail on 1 VM host, there is another providing seamless service. I want
> to do this with the 2 pc's I already have, each with 2 NIC's, and no
> other hardware.
>
> My basic question - what's the best solution to accomplish this?
>
> Here's what I've looked at:
> drbd/HA (heartbeat) - allows you to raid1 a disk partition between 2
> pc's over ethernet
> issues: in the default primary/secondary failover config, if
> primary fails, there is some period of time (even if only seconds),
> required for the secondary to become primary - I can only assume this
> would mean rebooting all the VM's.
> however - you can run drbd in a primary/primary config - this
> sounds like what I want. But it sounds like I need a clustering files
> system to do this like GFS. After countless hours researching this,
> I'm still not sure how to do it - do I need GFS? OCFS? NBD?
>
> Now drbd isn't really a cluster, it's just raid1-ing 2 pc's - this
> could be all I need.
> But - would a REAL cluster be a better solution? I believe a cluster
> could provide load balancing, or at least optimized use of all
> available hard disk heads. Although, if drbd needs GFS, then in fact,
> doesn't this become a real cluster?
>
> What would a clustering solution look like?
> which is the best filesystem to use - GFS/OCFS ?
> would drbd still be needed if GFS is used?
>
> Any ideas, experiences, help - greatly appreciated!

A *real* cluster would entail running OpenVMS (since clustering is
built deep into the OS) on either HP Integrity servers or used
AlphaServers, and either buying little SAN boxes or using HBVS
(Host-Based Volume Shadowing, which is similar to llvm, but has been
in enterprise use for 25 years) on the disks.

With this, the OS will allow you to use both nodes concurrently on
the same data files, and in case of a node crash, the other node
will clean things up so that you don't have any corrupted data.

Next best would be Tru64 (a.k.a. OSF/1) Unix on AlphaServers,
because much of the clustering technology from VMS was ported to Tru64.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA

"Kittens give Morbo gas. In lighter news, the city of New New
York is doomed."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkiKXSMACgkQS9HxQb37XmeHbgCdE6RIK8DTM8 w6r/R10A4tEkUn
5LcAoM06UUQGOjAI2L+E74RDuKP8P9eO
=v/H+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 07-26-2008, 06:47 AM
Alex Samad
 
Default to cluster or not? what's best solution for 2-node HA?

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 06:09:24PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 07/25/08 16:32, Bob wrote:
> > Here's what I want:
> > I have a vmware server running on etch, hosting 4 VM's.
> > I want these 4 VM's to be hosted in such a way, that should anything
> > fail on 1 VM host, there is another providing seamless service. I want
> > to do this with the 2 pc's I already have, each with 2 NIC's, and no
> > other hardware.
> >
> > My basic question - what's the best solution to accomplish this?
> >
> > Here's what I've looked at:
> > drbd/HA (heartbeat) - allows you to raid1 a disk partition between 2
> > pc's over ethernet
> > issues: in the default primary/secondary failover config, if
> > primary fails, there is some period of time (even if only seconds),
> > required for the secondary to become primary - I can only assume this
> > would mean rebooting all the VM's.
> > however - you can run drbd in a primary/primary config - this
> > sounds like what I want. But it sounds like I need a clustering files
> > system to do this like GFS. After countless hours researching this,
> > I'm still not sure how to do it - do I need GFS? OCFS? NBD?
> >
> > Now drbd isn't really a cluster, it's just raid1-ing 2 pc's - this
> > could be all I need.
> > But - would a REAL cluster be a better solution? I believe a cluster
> > could provide load balancing, or at least optimized use of all
> > available hard disk heads. Although, if drbd needs GFS, then in fact,
> > doesn't this become a real cluster?
> >
> > What would a clustering solution look like?
> > which is the best filesystem to use - GFS/OCFS ?
> > would drbd still be needed if GFS is used?
> >
> > Any ideas, experiences, help - greatly appreciated!
>
> A *real* cluster would entail running OpenVMS (since clustering is
> built deep into the OS) on either HP Integrity servers or used
> AlphaServers, and either buying little SAN boxes or using HBVS
> (Host-Based Volume Shadowing, which is similar to llvm, but has been
> in enterprise use for 25 years) on the disks.

Tree hugger

>
> With this, the OS will allow you to use both nodes concurrently on
> the same data files, and in case of a node crash, the other node
> will clean things up so that you don't have any corrupted data.
>
> Next best would be Tru64 (a.k.a. OSF/1) Unix on AlphaServers,
> because much of the clustering technology from VMS was ported to Tru64.

Best to get some sort of shared storage, like a disk shelf that allow
multiple connections - ie to server to connect at the same time (this
can be done with scsi but usually with FC ), I believe esx has its on
file system so just load it up, present the disk space to the 2 server
and your off.


>
> - --
> Ron Johnson, Jr.
> Jefferson LA USA
>
> "Kittens give Morbo gas. In lighter news, the city of New New
> York is doomed."
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkiKXSMACgkQS9HxQb37XmeHbgCdE6RIK8DTM8 w6r/R10A4tEkUn
> 5LcAoM06UUQGOjAI2L+E74RDuKP8P9eO
> =v/H+
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>

--
"I want to thank you for coming to the White House to give me an opportunity to urge you to work with these five senators and three congressmen, to work hard to get this trade promotion authority moving. The power that be, well most of the power that be, sits right here."

- George W. Bush
06/18/2001
Washington, DC
 
Old 07-26-2008, 08:31 AM
"James Youngman"
 
Default to cluster or not? what's best solution for 2-node HA?

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Bob <bobg.hahc@gmail.com> wrote:

> however - you can run drbd in a primary/primary config - this
> sounds like what I want. But it sounds like I need a clustering files
> system to do this like GFS. After countless hours researching this,
> I'm still not sure how to do it - do I need GFS? OCFS? NBD?

There is a presenation on Ganeti that might help you figure this out. See
http://ganeti.googlecode.com/files/Ganeti-FISL-2008.pdf

I believe Ganeti is in the Debian repository. It's my understanding
though that Ganeti works best with three machines, because that way
you still have dual-homed data even if one node already failed.

James.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 07-28-2008, 05:09 PM
Bob
 
Default to cluster or not? what's best solution for 2-node HA?

On Jul 25, 6:20 pm, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 07/25/08 16:32, Bob wrote:
>
>
>
> > Here's what I want:
> > I have a vmware server running on etch, hosting 4 VM's.
> > I want these 4 VM's to be hosted in such a way, that should anything
> > fail on 1 VM host, there is another providing seamless service. I want
> > to do this with the 2 pc's I already have, each with 2 NIC's, and no
> > other hardware.
>
> > My basic question - what's the best solution to accomplish this?
>
> > Here's what I've looked at:
> > drbd/HA (heartbeat) - allows you to raid1 a disk partition between 2
> > pc's over ethernet
> > issues: in the default primary/secondary failover config, if
> > primary fails, there is some period of time (even if only seconds),
> > required for the secondary to become primary - I can only assume this
> > would mean rebooting all the VM's.
> > however - you can run drbd in a primary/primary config - this
> > sounds like what I want. But it sounds like I need a clustering files
> > system to do this like GFS. After countless hours researching this,
> > I'm still not sure how to do it - do I need GFS? OCFS? NBD?
>
> > Now drbd isn't really a cluster, it's just raid1-ing 2 pc's - this
> > could be all I need.
> > But - would a REAL cluster be a better solution? I believe a cluster
> > could provide load balancing, or at least optimized use of all
> > available hard disk heads. Although, if drbd needs GFS, then in fact,
> > doesn't this become a real cluster?
>
> > What would a clustering solution look like?
> > which is the best filesystem to use - GFS/OCFS ?
> > would drbd still be needed if GFS is used?
>
> > Any ideas, experiences, help - greatly appreciated!
>
> A *real* cluster would entail running OpenVMS (since clustering is
> built deep into the OS) on either HP Integrity servers or used
> AlphaServers, and either buying little SAN boxes or using HBVS
> (Host-Based Volume Shadowing, which is similar to llvm, but has been
> in enterprise use for 25 years) on the disks.
>
> With this, the OS will allow you to use both nodes concurrently on
> the same data files, and in case of a node crash, the other node
> will clean things up so that you don't have any corrupted data.
>
> Next best would be Tru64 (a.k.a. OSF/1) Unix on AlphaServers,
> because much of the clustering technology from VMS was ported to Tru64.
>
> - --
> Ron Johnson, Jr.
> Jefferson LA USA
>

Hi Ron;

I appreciate your comments. I knew very little about "true" clustering
solutions - that's all good to know...

However, I'm curious if you have an opinion of what the best linux-
based solution might be ?

TIA - Bob


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 07-28-2008, 05:18 PM
Bob
 
Default to cluster or not? what's best solution for 2-node HA?

On Jul 26, 1:50 am, Alex Samad <a...@samad.com.au> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 06:09:24PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
>
> > On 07/25/08 16:32, Bob wrote:
> > > Here's what I want:
> > > I have a vmware server running on etch, hosting 4 VM's.
> > > I want these 4 VM's to be hosted in such a way, that should anything
> > > fail on 1 VM host, there is another providing seamless service. I want
> > > to do this with the 2 pc's I already have, each with 2 NIC's, and no
> > > other hardware.
>
> > > My basic question - what's the best solution to accomplish this?
>
> > > Here's what I've looked at:
> > > drbd/HA (heartbeat) - allows you to raid1 a disk partition between 2
> > > pc's over ethernet
> > > issues: in the default primary/secondary failover config, if
> > > primary fails, there is some period of time (even if only seconds),
> > > required for the secondary to become primary - I can only assume this
> > > would mean rebooting all the VM's.
> > > however - you can run drbd in a primary/primary config - this
> > > sounds like what I want. But it sounds like I need a clustering files
> > > system to do this like GFS. After countless hours researching this,
> > > I'm still not sure how to do it - do I need GFS? OCFS? NBD?
>
> > > Now drbd isn't really a cluster, it's just raid1-ing 2 pc's - this
> > > could be all I need.
> > > But - would a REAL cluster be a better solution? I believe a cluster
> > > could provide load balancing, or at least optimized use of all
> > > available hard disk heads. Although, if drbd needs GFS, then in fact,
> > > doesn't this become a real cluster?
>
> > > What would a clustering solution look like?
> > > which is the best filesystem to use - GFS/OCFS ?
> > > would drbd still be needed if GFS is used?
>
> > > Any ideas, experiences, help - greatly appreciated!
>
> > A *real* cluster would entail running OpenVMS (since clustering is
> > built deep into the OS) on either HP Integrity servers or used
> > AlphaServers, and either buying little SAN boxes or using HBVS
> > (Host-Based Volume Shadowing, which is similar to llvm, but has been
> > in enterprise use for 25 years) on the disks.
>
> Tree hugger
>
>
>
> > With this, the OS will allow you to use both nodes concurrently on
> > the same data files, and in case of a node crash, the other node
> > will clean things up so that you don't have any corrupted data.
>
> > Next best would be Tru64 (a.k.a. OSF/1) Unix on AlphaServers,
> > because much of the clustering technology from VMS was ported to Tru64.
>
> Best to get some sort of shared storage, like a disk shelf that allow
> multiple connections - ie to server to connect at the same time (this
> can be done with scsi but usually with FC ), I believe esx has its on
> file system so just load it up, present the disk space to the 2 server
> and your off.
>
>

Alex - TX for your reply...

At the moment, I really don't want to invest in iscsi/FC tech... and
my solution doesn't really need the 99.999% uptime these solutions
might provide. I'd be happy with 99.0% ;-)

I do find your mention of ESX interesting though, as I have considered
upgrading my (free) vmware server to ESX. It does have some really
nice features. However, at the present point in time, that would add a
significant cost I'm not able to invest (I would need a couple add-ons
in addition to ESX as well).

So I'm really looking for the best open, linux based solution. The
more & more I look into this, the more it seems to me like drbd v8
running in primary/primary config, over GFS might be the best way to
go...

I'm just curious if anyone disagrees, and if so, what their linux
based alternative might look like...

TIA - Bob


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 07-28-2008, 05:51 PM
Bob
 
Default to cluster or not? what's best solution for 2-node HA?

On Jul 26, 3:50 am, "James Youngman" <j...@gnu.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Bob <bobg.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > however - you can run drbd in a primary/primary config - this
> > sounds like what I want. But it sounds like I need a clustering files
> > system to do this like GFS. After countless hours researching this,
> > I'm still not sure how to do it - do I need GFS? OCFS? NBD?
>
> There is a presenation on Ganeti that might help you figure this out. Seehttp://ganeti.googlecode.com/files/Ganeti-FISL-2008.pdf
>
> I believe Ganeti is in the Debian repository. It's my understanding
> though that Ganeti works best with three machines, because that way
> you still have dual-homed data even if one node already failed.
>
> James.
>

James -
TX so much for your reply. I had done some research into ganeti, but
hadn't see that presentation - I found it very helpful.

I have posted some questions to a ganeti group, because first &
foremost, I don't want to move my VM's out of vmware. So I would need
vmware to run on the 'ganeti system', and don't know if that can
happen, or if it makes sense to do it that way...

Also - as you've already indicated, ganeti seems to want a 3rd pc to
manage everything. In the future, this may start to make more sense,
but for now, I really want a 2-pc solution.

For me, it's not necessary to have a dual-homed system after 1
failure. It's simply enough to have 1 fully running system. I'd like
the VM's to continue without reboot if 1 fails, but if the 2nd system
should fail during the downtime of the 1st failed system, I can live
with that. (for now ;-)

Would you happen to be able to address any of those questions?
TIA - Bob


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 07-29-2008, 12:18 AM
Alex Samad
 
Default to cluster or not? what's best solution for 2-node HA?

On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:18:03AM -0700, Bob wrote:
> On Jul 26, 1:50 am, Alex Samad <a...@samad.com.au> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 06:09:24PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > > On 07/25/08 16:32, Bob wrote:

[snip]

> >
>
> Alex - TX for your reply...
>
> At the moment, I really don't want to invest in iscsi/FC tech... and
> my solution doesn't really need the 99.999% uptime these solutions
> might provide. I'd be happy with 99.0% ;-)
>
> I do find your mention of ESX interesting though, as I have considered
> upgrading my (free) vmware server to ESX. It does have some really
> nice features. However, at the present point in time, that would add a
> significant cost I'm not able to invest (I would need a couple add-ons
> in addition to ESX as well).
>
> So I'm really looking for the best open, linux based solution. The
> more & more I look into this, the more it seems to me like drbd v8
> running in primary/primary config, over GFS might be the best way to
> go...
gfs is going to need some shared storage, I believe esx will do their
virtual motion over lan as well.

>
> I'm just curious if anyone disagrees, and if so, what their linux
> based alternative might look like...
>
> TIA - Bob
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>

--
"Over 75 percent of white Americans own their home, and less than 50 percent of Hispanos and African Americans don't own their home. And that's a gap, that's a homeownership gap. And we've got to do something about it."

- George W. Bush
07/01/2002
Cleveland, OH
 
Old 07-30-2008, 06:10 PM
Bob
 
Default to cluster or not? what's best solution for 2-node HA?

On Jul 28, 7:20 pm, Alex Samad <a...@samad.com.au> wrote:
> > > > On 07/25/08 16:32, Bob wrote:
[SNIP]
>
> > So I'm really looking for the best open, linux based solution. The
> > more & more I look into this, the more it seems to me like drbd v8
> > running in primary/primary config, over GFS might be the best way to
> > go...
>
> gfs is going to need some shared storage, I believe esx will do their
> virtual motion over lan as well.
>

Alex -
TX again for sharing your knowledge...

I also believe this to be correct (esx v-motion over lan).

FYI/FWIW:
I'm continuing to look for an open-source solution that emulates esx's
behavior - but using vmware-server-free version.
I currently believe that drbd 8 / heartbeat is the next best thing...

I'll post more information if I find something different...

Bob


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:40 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org