Hum I don't see the problem, it's possible to load-balance VIPs with LVS, there are just IPs... Can I see your conf?
-- Regards, Sébastien Han. On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Samuel Winchenbach <swinc...@gmail.com>wrote: > W > ell, I think I will have to go with one ip per service and forget about > load balancing. It seems as though with LVS routing requests internally > through the VIP is difficult (impossible?) at least with LVS-DR. It seems > like a shame not to be able to distribute the work among the controller > nodes. > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Samuel Winchenbach <swinc...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Hi Sébastien, >> >> I have two hosts with public interfaces with a number (~8) compute nodes >> behind them. I am trying to set the two public nodes in for HA and load >> balancing, I plan to run all the openstack services on these two nodes in >> Active/Active where possible. I currently have MySQL and RabbitMQ setup >> in pacemaker with a drbd backend. >> >> That is a quick summary. If there is anything else I can answer about >> my setup please let me know. >> >> Thanks, >> Sam >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Sébastien Han >> <han.sebast...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> Well I don't know your setup, if you use LB for API service or if you >>> use an active/passive pacemaker but at the end it's not that much IPs I >>> guess. I dare to say that Keepalived sounds outdated to me... >>> >>> If you use pacemaker and want to have the same IP for all the resources >>> simply create a resource group with all the openstack service inside it >>> (it's ugly but if it's what you want :)). Give me more info about your >>> setup and we can go further in the discussion :). >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> Sébastien Han. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Samuel Winchenbach >>> <swinc...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> T >>>> he only real problem is that it would consume a lot of IP addresses >>>> when exposing the public interfaces. I _think_ I may have the solution in >>>> your blog actually: >>>> http://www.sebastien-han.fr/blog/2012/10/19/highly-available-lvs/ >>>> and >>>> http://clusterlabs.org/wiki/Using_ldirectord >>>> >>>> I am trying to weigh the pros and cons of this method vs >>>> keepalived/haproxy and just biting the bullet and using one IP per service. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:17 AM, Sébastien Han <han.sebast...@gmail.com >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> What's the problem to have one IP on service pool basis? >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Sébastien Han. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Samuel Winchenbach < >>>>> swinc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> What if the VIP is created on a different host than keystone is >>>>>> started on? It seems like you either need to set >>>>>> net.ipv4.ip_nonlocal_bind >>>>>> = 1 or create a colocation in pacemaker (which would either require all >>>>>> services to be on the same host, or have an ip-per-service). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Razique Mahroua < >>>>>> razique.mahr...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> There we go >>>>>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/21581/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Razique Mahroua** - **Nuage & Co* >>>>>>> razique.mahr...@gmail.com >>>>>>> Tel : +33 9 72 37 94 15 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le 13 févr. 2013 à 20:15, Razique Mahroua <razique.mahr...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> a écrit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm currently updating that part of the documentation - indeed it >>>>>>> states that two IPs are used, but in fact, you end up with only one VIP >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> the API service. >>>>>>> I'll send the patch tonight >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Razique Mahroua** - **Nuage & Co* >>>>>>> razique.mahr...@gmail.com >>>>>>> Tel : +33 9 72 37 94 15 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <NUAGECO-LOGO-Fblan_petit.jpg> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le 13 févr. 2013 à 20:05, Samuel Winchenbach <swinc...@gmail.com> a >>>>>>> écrit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In that documentation it looks like each openstack service gets it >>>>>>> own IP (keystone is being assigned 192.168.42.103 and glance is getting >>>>>>> 192.168.42.104). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I might be missing something too because in the section titled >>>>>>> "Configure the VIP" it create a primitive called "p_api-ip" (or >>>>>>> p_ip_api if >>>>>>> you read the text above it) and then in "Adding Keystone resource to >>>>>>> Pacemaker" it creates a group with "p_ip_keystone"??? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Stranger yet, "Configuring OpenStack Services to use High Available >>>>>>> Glance API" says: "For Nova, for example, if your Glance API >>>>>>> service IP address is 192.168.42.104 as in the configuration explained >>>>>>> here, you would use the following line in your nova.conf file : >>>>>>> glance_api_servers >>>>>>> = 192.168.42.103" But, in the step before it set: "registry_host >>>>>>> = 192.168.42.104"? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So I am not sure which ip you would connect to here... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sam >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 1:29 PM, JuanFra Rodriguez Cardoso < >>>>>>> juanfra.rodriguez.card...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Samuel: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, it's possible with pacemaker. Look at >>>>>>>> http://docs.openstack.org/trunk/openstack-ha/content/ch-intro.html. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> JuanFra >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2013/2/13 Samuel Winchenbach <swinc...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I currently have a HA OpenStack cluster running where the >>>>>>>>> OpenStack services are kept alive with a combination of haproxy and >>>>>>>>> keepalived. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is it possible to configure pacemaker so that all the OpenStack >>>>>>>>> services are served by the same IP? With keepalived I have a >>>>>>>>> virtual ip >>>>>>>>> that can move from server to server and haproxy sends the request to a >>>>>>>>> machine that has a "live" service. This allows one (public) ip to >>>>>>>>> handle >>>>>>>>> all incoming requests. I believe it is the combination of VRRP/IPVS >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> allows this. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is it possible to do something similar with pacemaker? I really >>>>>>>>> don't want to have an IP for each service, and I don't want to make >>>>>>>>> it a >>>>>>>>> requirement that all OpenStack services must be running on the same >>>>>>>>> server. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks... I hope this question is clear, I feel like I sort of >>>>>>>>> butchered the wording a bit. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sam >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack >>>>>>>>> Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net >>>>>>>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack >>>>>>>>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack >>>>>>> Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net >>>>>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack >>>>>>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack >>>>>> Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net >>>>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack >>>>>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp