[ClusterLabs] Maximum cluster size with Pacemaker 2.x and Corosync 3.x, and scaling to hundreds of nodes
nwahl at redhat.com
Wed Jul 29 19:44:40 EDT 2020
Addressing only the first paragraph of your message, inline below. I'll
have to defer to others to answer the remainder.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 4:12 PM Toby Haynes <thaynes at ca.ibm.com> wrote:
> In Corosync 1.x there was a limit on the maximum number of active nodes in
> a corosync cluster - broswing the mailing list says 64 hosts. The Pacemaker
> 1.1 documentation says scalability goes up to 16 nodes. The Pacemaker 2.0
> documentation says the same, although I can't find a maximum number of
> nodes in Corosync 3.
I'm assuming that you're referring to the Pacemaker Remote document, as I
can't find any reference to 16 nodes in the other ClusterLabs docs.
Red Hat supports clusters with up to 32 full nodes as of RHEL 8.1. That
didn't require any change to corosync; it already worked and simply had to
be verified. So the Pacemaker Remote doc may need an update to say 32 nodes.
> discusses deployments up to 64 hosts but it appears to reference Pacemaker
> With the arrival of Corossync 3.x (and Pacemaker 2.x) how large a cluster
> can be supported? If we want to get to a cluster with 100+ nodes, what are
> the best design approaches, especially if there is no clear hierarchy to
> the nodes in use (i.e. all of the hosts are important!).
> Are there performance implications when comparing the operation of a
> pacemaker remote node to a full stack pacemaker node?
> Toby Haynes
> Manage your subscription:
> ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/
Reid Wahl, RHCA
Software Maintenance Engineer, Red Hat
CEE - Platform Support Delivery - ClusterHA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Users