Yes you could refer the tables that have the prefix "REG_". On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 4:11 AM, Shaheedur Haque (shahhaqu) < shahh...@cisco.com> wrote:
> Can you suggest what tables to look at? > > > > *From:* Imesh Gunaratne [mailto:im...@apache.org] > *Sent:* 07 May 2015 18:00 > > *To:* dev > *Subject:* Re: Clustered deployments of Stratos > > > > Hi Shaheed, > > > > Thanks for the clarification! May be the problem is with the MySQL > active-passive configuration. > > > > I understand that you are switching the same OpenStack volume from active > node to the passive node (when the passive node becomes active) therefore > technically it should work. May be we need to investigate this problem > further by analysing whether data is persisted properly in the active node > before the passive node becomes active. > > > > Thanks > > > > On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Shaheedur Haque (shahhaqu) < > shahh...@cisco.com> wrote: > > The data is not synchronised between the active and passive nodes. For > clarity, this is the HA model we had, much as described in the blog: > > > > · 2 nodes, with Pacemaker in active-passive mode. > > · Under Pacemaker control: > > o We run MySQL in active-passive mode, using a single OpenStack volume > which we attach/reattach as the active role moves around nodes. > > o As the Pacemaker moves the volume, and thus MySQL around on node > failures, ActiveMQ and Stratos are moved around too. > > o Thus, everything operates in active-passive mode. > > > > Even in this model, as the active Stratos 4.0 is moved around (i.e. the > Stratos JVM on the old active node has gone with the node, and Pacemaker > starts up a new Stratos JVM on what used to be the passive node), we found > that the Cartridge Definition objects were found to be missing and, as a > clumsy workaround [1], we had to replay the stored copied of them into > Stratos using the REST API. > > > > With Stratos 4.1, using the new object names , early indications are > *Deployment > Policies* and *Application Deployment* policies are lost as the active > fails over to the passive. If anything, these objects are more likely to > hit the problems of [1], since Stratos 4.1 expects these to be tweaked on > the fly (min/max etc). > > > > Thanks, Shaheed > > > > [1] Clearly, this loses any changes that were not in the stored copies. > > > > *From:* Imesh Gunaratne [mailto:im...@apache.org] > *Sent:* 03 May 2015 06:43 > *To:* dev@stratos.apache.org > > > *Subject:* Re: Clustered deployments of Stratos > > > > Hi Shaheed, > > > > Thanks for taking time to test this! > > > > Just to clarify the exact problem, do you mean that data is not > synchronized between the active and passive nodes or they are not persisted > in the active node? > > > > Thanks > > > On Sunday, May 3, 2015, Shaheedur Haque (shahhaqu) <shahh...@cisco.com> > wrote: > > > I have been looking into our use of Linux HA to setup an Active-Passive > configuration. Testing indicates that in 4.1 (beta1), several objects seem > not to be persisted properly. This includes at least: > > - Cartridges > - Deployment policies > > Am I missing something? Is it safe to workaround this by replaying those > objects? > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Imesh Gunaratne [im...@apache.org] > *Sent:* 23 April 2015 10:47 > *To:* dev > *Subject:* Re: Clustered deployments of Stratos > > Hi Shaheed, > > > > Currently N-way clustering is still not possible with CC, AS & SM. We > completed the initial phase of this feature however it was not completed. > You could refer mail thread "[Discuss] Clustering Feature Implementation > for 4.1.0-Alpha Release" for details. > > > > However at present [1] is valid. We could use Linux HA and deploy CC, AS > and SM in Active-Passive mode. > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Shaheedur Haque (shahhaqu) < > shahh...@cisco.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > We currently try to achieve HA with Stratos using something so unpleasant > that I won’t even describe it here J. It has been suggested that Stratos > has, for a while now, supported a clustered mode of deployment where, given > N servers: > > > > · The SM, AS and MB operate in a N-way clustered mode > > · The CEP operates in a N-way loadsharing mode > > · The Cartridge Agents can react to a failure in one of the N CEPs > by failing over to one of the other N-1 remaining servers > > > > In looking for documentation on how to set this up, I came across these > two write-ups [1] and [2]. Questions: > > > > · Both these documents mention only using N=2. Is that still > correct? > > · [1] Seems recently written, and [2] is a little older but not > much. Are both documents still regarded as current? > > > > Also, I’d love to hear any other experiences people have of running > configurations like this. > > > > Thanks, Shaheed > > > > [1] > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/STRATOS/4.1.0+Configuring+HA+Using+Pacemaker+and+Heartbeat > > [2] http://blog.lasindu.com/2014/08/wso2-private-paas-supporting.html > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Imesh Gunaratne > > > > Technical Lead, WSO2 > > Committer & PMC Member, Apache Stratos > > > > -- > > Imesh Gunaratne > > > > Senior Technical Lead, WSO2 > > Committer & PMC Member, Apache Stratos > > > > > > > > -- > > Imesh Gunaratne > > > > Senior Technical Lead, WSO2 > > Committer & PMC Member, Apache Stratos > -- Imesh Gunaratne Senior Technical Lead, WSO2 Committer & PMC Member, Apache Stratos
