> Hi all, > > I've been investigating Pacemaker/Corosync for providing high availability > for a wide range of applications. I found this combination to be very > useful. Some of my applications require a fail-over cluster while others > require load-balanced cluster. > > I am wondering what are the best practices when managing the clusters for > those applications. > > Currently, each application runs in a separate/dedicated cluster. I > essentially have different corosync configurations, one per cluster. > > I am wondering if it is not better to setup 1 large Pacemaker cluster which > is partitioned in such a way that certain resources are dedicated to a > certain application (using node attribute expressions like in > http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/en-US/Pacemaker/1.0/html/Pacemaker_Explaine > d/ch-rules.html#s-expression-attribute). > > There would only be 1 Corosync configuration, and the cluster is > partitioned using some naming convention. It seems to me that this would > simplify management. > > I wonder what people think about this approach. > > Many thanks in advance. > > Guillaume.
Yes. gathering all applications in one cluster is possible. From my experience I would think about two points: - Be sure to make your cluster powerful enough that the applications still run if one (ore two) servers are down. - Make a separate cluster for the loadbalancers. That makes debugging much easier. Greetings, -- Dr. Michael Schwartzkopff Guardinistr. 63 81375 München Tel: (0163) 172 50 98
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
