On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 09:49:00 -0500 Robert Parsons <rpars...@tappublishing.com> wrote: > > We are building a new web farm to replace our 7 year old system. The > old system used ipvs/ldirectord/heartbeat to implement redundant load > balancers. All web server nodes were physical boxes. > > The proposed new system will utilize approximately 24 virtual > machines as web servers. Load balancing and redundancy will be done > via ClusterIP rather than an explicit load balancer. We're looking at > potentially 50 services running on 24 nodes. Pacemaker seemed like it > would accommodate such a setup, however, from my research I am > worried that perhaps it will not scale up to such a level. > > Does anyone have any experience or feedback on this proposed approach > to a web farm? Should I consider another approach?
I can't speak for webfarms (yet), but we have 66 services, mostly drbd-devices and virtual machines on a 2+1 node cluster running successfully. Some of the default-intervals where to short so we increased them to make pacemaker less demanding and now its running smoothly. It helps that the vms total used memory is less then what both active nodes have. So the normal distributed usage leaves lots of memory to be used as disk-cache on the hosts. Have fun, Arnold
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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
