[ClusterLabs] Two related Cluster

[‪H Yavari‬ ‪]

Hi again,
I'm confused with attributes and rules. I was searching for dummies agents and I see the remote solution.You're are right. This is not advised for production.Now, I know that, physical servers should be map to services then I constraint services to other resource.
I couldn't find my way.
Regards,H.Yavari


      From: Klaus Wenninger <kwenning at redhat.com>
 To: users at clusterlabs.org 
 Sent: Wednesday, 18 May 2016, 16:55:17
 Subject: Re: [ClusterLabs] Two related Cluster
   
On 05/18/2016 01:57 PM, ‪H Yavari‬ ‪ wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thank you for reply.
> I tested the first method "multi-site cluster". it was ok with ticket
> manually assignment. But I had issues with running Booth.
> I tested second method "constraints and attributes". I make a cluster
> with 4 nodes and define some constraints for nodes. But I have
> problems with node relations now.
> I was searching in the docs then I found
> "http://clusterlabs.org/doc/en-US/Pacemaker/1.1/html/Pacemaker_Remote/ch05.html".
> I thinks this is very close to my answer. Do you offer this solution?

Going with pacemaker-remote would be a 3rd option.
Could imagine to have the 2 nodes with the master/slave-resource be the
full-fledged pacemaker-nodes
and the 2 other nodes would then be remote-nodes.
On the other hand this would end up in a 2-node-cluster which is bad for
quorum and thus should
be avoided whenever possible - especially if you have enough nodes anyway.

Thinking in the direction of making the remote-node-resources both tied
to one of the full nodes each
and collocated with the master role. And your service would then be tied
to the remote nodes.
Sounds like something funny to play with although I've never set up
anything like this ;-)
But as pacemaker-remote is not broadly used this way it is probably not
advisable to use that in a
production environment.

Or how did you have in mind to leverage pacemaker-remote for your scenario?

>
> Regards,
> H.Yavari
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Kristoffer Grönlund <kgronlund at suse.com>
> *To:* ‪H Yavari‬ ‪ <hyavari at rocketmail.com>; Cluster Labs - All topics
> related to open-source clustering welcomed <users at clusterlabs.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 18 May 2016, 10:36:39
> *Subject:* Re: [ClusterLabs] Two related Cluster
>
> ‪H Yavari‬ ‪ <hyavari at rocketmail.com <mailto:hyavari at rocketmail.com>>
> writes:
>
> > Hi,
> > So you think for this solution Booth is better or attribute method?
> I'm not familiar with them so can you share your experiences with
> them?Many thanks.
> >
>
> I think a single cluster using node attributes should be a lot easier to
> understand and maintain, so I'd recommend that solution if it works out
> for you.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Kristoffer
>
> -- 
> // Kristoffer Grönlund
> // kgronlund at suse.com <mailto:kgronlund at suse.com>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list: Users at clusterlabs.org
> http://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 at clusterlabs.org
http://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


  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20160518/243df777/attachment-0001.htm>