[ClusterLabs] Antw: Running two independent clusters
Ken Gaillot
kgaillot at redhat.com
Thu Mar 30 14:30:11 UTC 2017
On 03/30/2017 01:17 AM, Nikhil Utane wrote:
> "/Coincidentally, I am about to announce enhanced container support in/
> /pacemaker. I should have a post with more details later today or
> tomorrow./"
>
> Ken: Where you able to get to it?
>
> -Thanks
> Nikhil
Not yet, we've been tweaking the syntax a bit, so I wanted to have
something more final first. But it's very close.
>
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com
> <mailto:kgaillot at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> On 03/22/2017 11:08 PM, Nikhil Utane wrote:
> > I simplified when I called it as a service. Essentially it is a complete
> > system.
> > It is an LTE eNB solution. It provides LTE service (service A) and now
> > we need to provide redundancy for another different but related service
> > (service B). The catch being, the LTE redundancy solution will be tied
> > to one operator whereas the other service can span across multiple
> > operators. Therefore ideally we want two completely independent clusters
> > since different set of nodes will form the two clusters.
> > Now what I am thinking is, to run additional instance of Pacemaker +
> > Corosync in a container which can then notify the service B on host
> > machine to start or stop it's service. That way my CIB file will be
> > independent and I can run corosync on different interfaces.
> >
> > Workable right?
> >
> > -Regards
> > Nikhil
>
> It's not well-tested, but in theory it should work, as long as the
> container is privileged.
>
> I still think virtualizing the services would be more resilient. It
> makes sense to have a single determination of quorum and fencing for the
> same real hosts. I'd think of it like a cloud provider -- the cloud
> instances are segregated by customer, but the underlying hosts are
> the same.
>
> You could configure your cluster as asymmetric, and enable each VM only
> on the nodes it's allowed on, so you get the two separate "clusters"
> that way. You could set up the VMs as guest nodes if you want to monitor
> and manage multiple services within them. If your services require
> hardware access that's not easily passed to a VM, containerizing the
> services might be a better option.
>
> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com <mailto:kgaillot at redhat.com>
> > <mailto:kgaillot at redhat.com <mailto:kgaillot at redhat.com>>> wrote:
> >
> > On 03/22/2017 05:23 AM, Nikhil Utane wrote:
> > > 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
> >
> > Instead of containerizing pacemaker, why don't you containerize or
> > virtualize the services, and have pacemaker manage the containers/VMs?
> >
> > Coincidentally, I am about to announce enhanced container support in
> > pacemaker. I should have a post with more details later today or
> > tomorrow.
> >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Ulrich Windl
> > > <Ulrich.Windl at rz.uni-regensburg.de
> <mailto:Ulrich.Windl at rz.uni-regensburg.de>
> > <mailto:Ulrich.Windl at rz.uni-regensburg.de
> <mailto:Ulrich.Windl at rz.uni-regensburg.de>>
> > > <mailto:Ulrich.Windl at rz.uni-regensburg.de
> <mailto:Ulrich.Windl at rz.uni-regensburg.de>
> > <mailto:Ulrich.Windl at rz.uni-regensburg.de
> <mailto:Ulrich.Windl at rz.uni-regensburg.de>>>> wrote:
> > >
> > > >>> Nikhil Utane <nikhil.subscribed at gmail.com <mailto:nikhil.subscribed at gmail.com>
> <mailto:nikhil.subscribed at gmail.com
> <mailto:nikhil.subscribed at gmail.com>>
> > > <mailto:nikhil.subscribed at gmail.com
> <mailto:nikhil.subscribed at gmail.com>
> > <mailto:nikhil.subscribed at gmail.com <mailto:nikhil.subscribed at gmail.com>>>>
> schrieb am 22.03.2017 um 07:48 in
> > > Nachricht
> > >
> > <CAGNWmJV05-YG+f9VNG0Deu-2xo7Lp+kRQPOn9sWYy7Jz=0gNag at mail.gmail.com <mailto:0gNag at mail.gmail.com>
> > <mailto:0gNag at mail.gmail.com <mailto:0gNag at mail.gmail.com>>
> > > <mailto:0gNag at mail.gmail.com
> <mailto:0gNag at mail.gmail.com> <mailto:0gNag at mail.gmail.com
> <mailto:0gNag at 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
> <https://github.com/davidvossel/pacemaker_docker>
> > <https://github.com/davidvossel/pacemaker_docker
> <https://github.com/davidvossel/pacemaker_docker>>
> > > <https://github.com/davidvossel/pacemaker_docker
> <https://github.com/davidvossel/pacemaker_docker>
> > <https://github.com/davidvossel/pacemaker_docker
> <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
More information about the Users
mailing list