On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 5:37 AM, Russell Bryant <russ...@ovn.org> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 8:15 PM, Andy Zhou <az...@ovn.org> wrote: > >> Hi, Rayn and Russell, >> > > Can we move this discussion to the ovs dev mailing list? Feel free to > just add it in a reply if you'd like. > Done. > > >> I am wondering how we can actually use the active/backup feature that is >> now part of >> OVSDB to increase OVN availability. >> > > TO be clear, I haven't actually tried this yet. I'm only speaking about > how I think it should work. > > >> Specifically: >> >> 1. When the active OVSDB server failed, should the back up server take >> over, and allow write transactions? One simpler possibility is to allow >> read only access to the backup serve. >> > > The backup server needs to take over. It's OK if that requires > intervention by an HA manager like Pacemaker. If we can't make the passive > server take over, I'd say the solution is incomplete. > O.K. make sense. One possible issue with backup server taking over is "split head". In case due to network error, backup server becomes disconnected from the active server, then we may have both server thinking they are active server now. Does Pacemaker help with solving this issue. > > >> 2. When a crashed active OVSDB server recovers, should it become the new >> backup, or it should switch back. >> > > Becoming the new backup is fine. Again, this can be orchestrated by an HA > manager (Pacemaker). > I am not familiar with pacemaker. Can I assume it can provide a correct --sync-from argument (pointing to backup server) when relaunch OVSDB server? > > >> Ben said one of you, or both may have worked with similar active-backup >> systems before, so I am very interested in your inputs. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Andy >> > > > > -- > Russell Bryant > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
