On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Gustavo Niemeyer <gust...@niemeyer.net>wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:31 AM, John Arbash Meinel > <j...@arbash-meinel.com> wrote: > > I would probably avoid putting such an emphasis on "any machine can be > > a manager machine". But that is my personal opinion. (If you want HA > > you probably want it on dedicated nodes.) > > Resource waste holds juju back for the small users. Being able to > share a state server with other resources does sound attractive from > that perspective. It may be the difference between running 3 machines > or 6. If you only have 3 machines, do you really need HA from juju? You don't have HA from your machines that are actually *running your service*. > > I would probably also remove the machine if the only thing on it was > > the management. Certainly that is how people want us to do "juju > > remove-unit". > > If there are other units in the same machine, we should definitely not > remove the machine on remove-unit. The principle sounds the same with > state servers. > > > The main problem with this is that it feels slightly too easy to add > > just 1 machine and then not actually have HA (mongo stops allowing > > writes if you have a 2-node cluster and lose one, right?) > > +1 > Yeah, same here. I still think we need a "turn on HA mode" command that'll bring you to 3 servers. It doesn't have to be the swiss army knife that we said before... just something to go from non-HA to valid HA environment.
-- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
