[ClusterLabs] Help required for N+1 redundancy setup

Ken Gaillot kgaillot at redhat.com
Tue Dec 1 10:34:39 EST 2015

On 12/01/2015 05:31 AM, Nikhil Utane wrote:
> Hi,
> I am evaluating whether it is feasible to use Pacemaker + Corosync to add
> support for clustering/redundancy into our product.

Most definitely

> Our objectives:
> 1) Support N+1 redundancy. i,e. N Active and (up to) 1 Standby.

You can do this with location constraints and scores. See:

Basically, you give the standby node a lower score than the other nodes.

> 2) Each node has some different configuration parameters.
> 3) Whenever any active node goes down, the standby node comes up with the
> same configuration that the active had.

How you solve this requirement depends on the specifics of your
situation. Ideally, you can use OCF resource agents that take the
configuration location as a parameter. You may have to write your own,
if none is available for your services.

> 4) There is no one single process/service for which we need redundancy,
> rather it is the entire system (multiple processes running together).

This is trivially implemented using either groups or ordering and
colocation constraints.

Order constraint = start service A before starting service B (and stop
in reverse order)

Colocation constraint = keep services A and B on the same node

Group = shortcut to specify several services that need to start/stop in
order and be kept together



> 5) I would also want to be notified when any active<->standby state
> transition happens as I would want to take some steps at the application
> level.

There are multiple approaches.

If you don't mind compiling your own packages, the latest master branch
(which will be part of the upcoming 1.1.14 release) has built-in
notification capability. See:

Otherwise, you can use SNMP or e-mail if your packages were compiled
with those options, or you can use the ocf:pacemaker:ClusterMon resource

> I went through the documents/blogs but all had example for 1 active and 1
> standby use-case and that too for some standard service like httpd.

Pacemaker is incredibly versatile, and the use cases are far too varied
to cover more than a small subset. Those simple examples show the basic
building blocks, and can usually point you to the specific features you
need to investigate further.

> One additional question, If I am having multiple actives, then Virtual IP
> configuration cannot be used? Is it possible such that N actives have
> different IP addresses but whenever standby becomes active it uses the IP
> address of the failed node?

Yes, there are a few approaches here, too.

The simplest is to assign a virtual IP to each active, and include it in
your group of resources. The whole group will fail over to the standby
node if the original goes down.

If you want a single virtual IP that is used by all your actives, one
alternative is to clone the ocf:heartbeat:IPaddr2 resource. When cloned,
that resource agent will use iptables' CLUSTERIP functionality, which
relies on multicast Ethernet addresses (not to be confused with
multicast IP). Since multicast Ethernet has limitations, this is not
often used in production.

A more complicated method is to use a virtual IP in combination with a
load-balancer such as haproxy. Pacemaker can manage haproxy and the real
services, and haproxy manages distributing requests to the real services.

> Thanking in advance.
> Nikhil

A last word of advice: Fencing (aka STONITH) is important for proper
recovery from difficult failure conditions. Without it, it is possible
to have data loss or corruption in a split-brain situation.

More information about the Users mailing list