[ClusterLabs] Antw: Running two independent clusters

[Nikhil Utane]

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


On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Ken Gaillot <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>> wrote:
> >
> >     >>> Nikhil Utane <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>>:
> >     > 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> 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 at 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20170323/bf2ad12b/attachment-0003.html>