Re: [CentOS] Replacement for Linux-HA (heartbeat) - RedHat cluster?

2007-12-05 Thread Amos Shapira
On 06/12/2007, Dave Augustus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 If you can try with non-Xen kernels, you should get better results.

Does this mean that you tried Xen kernels and DomU and it failed, then
switched to non-Xen kernels on the same setup and it succeeded?

Thanks,

--Amos
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Replacement for Linux-HA (heartbeat) - RedHat cluster?

2007-12-05 Thread Ross Cavanagh

Amos Shapira wrote:

On 06/12/2007, Dave Augustus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  

If you can try with non-Xen kernels, you should get better results.



Does this mean that you tried Xen kernels and DomU and it failed, then
switched to non-Xen kernels on the same setup and it succeeded?

Thanks,

--Amos
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

  
I'm sure you've done this, but did you install kmod-drbd-xen ? I had 
missed installing this when trying to run drbd with heartbeat v2 under 
xen the first time I was testing it.


-Ross-

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Replacement for Linux-HA (heartbeat) - RedHat cluster?

2007-12-05 Thread Matt Shields
On Dec 5, 2007 5:23 PM, Amos Shapira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On 06/12/2007, Dave Augustus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  If you can try with non-Xen kernels, you should get better results.

 Does this mean that you tried Xen kernels and DomU and it failed, then
 switched to non-Xen kernels on the same setup and it succeeded?


I could probably bet you that you doing this on VM's is what's causing
the problem.  Grab some cheap old hardware and try setting this up on
real machines.  It will work.


-- 
-matt
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Replacement for Linux-HA (heartbeat) - RedHat cluster?

2007-12-05 Thread Amos Shapira
On 06/12/2007, Matt Shields [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I could probably bet you that you doing this on VM's is what's causing
 the problem.  Grab some cheap old hardware and try setting this up on
 real machines.  It will work.

The problem is that we don't have spare hardware lying around (we run
a tight shop).

Besides - I imagine there are good uses for running such stuff on Xen
guests (e.g. two VPS's on two separate real hosts, or even for testing
just like I do).

Tonight I'll try to switch our Debian Etch Xen host to CentOS so I can
try it between real machines.

In the mean time, I managed to compile and run heartbeat 1.2.5 and now
looking at how to actually configure resources for it.

Cheers,

--Amos
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Replacement for Linux-HA (heartbeat) - RedHat cluster?

2007-12-02 Thread Amos Shapira
On 02/12/2007, Dave Augustus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 We are in the middle of migrating to a new colo and I first heard about
 Cluster Suite with the release of 5.

 Our old colo used 2 different 2-node clusters using hearbeat version 1. We had
 a 2-node cluster in Active/passive for the LVS director and 4 nodes as real
 servers. Our other 2-node cluster was file servers.

 I saw the Redhat Cluster Suite (RCS) and spent 2 weeks trying to implement it-
 without success. I ran into bugs and couldn't get it to work right.

Thanks. That's helpful to know.


 (Parenthecally let me say this: VERSION 2 ROCKS! With version 1, you are
 limited to 2 nodes. With 2, as many as you want.)

Yes I know that heartbeat 2.x should rock - when it runs. But having
multiple core dumps on my filesystem doesn't exactly increase my
confidence in it.


 So I went back to heartbeat and learned version 2. Now, we have a 6-node
 cluster where ANY NODE can be a REAL SERVER OR a LVS DIRECTOR. It was really

That's my plan - to put both director and real servers on the same
two nodes. As far as I'm aware it's possible also with version 1.

 cool when I learned how to do it. I spent 2 more weeks learning it BUT I have
 a solution that works and has been stable since inception. Note that we left
 the file servers in their own 2 node cluster.

Which platform is it? Is it CentOS 5 x86_64 on an Intel Xeon?

I suspect that maybe my problems are connected with this particular
architecture.

And possibly a general CentOS question - Is it practical to just
install i386 packages of heartbeat on an x86_64 system?


 So, in summary, from my experience:

 1. forget RCS
 2. use Heartbeat in version 2 mode to control both LVS and REAL Server
 functionality.
 3. This will allow you to sleep at night.

 Enjoy!

Thanks.

--Amos
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


RE: [CentOS] Replacement for Linux-HA (heartbeat) - RedHat cluster?

2007-12-02 Thread Ross S. W. Walker
Amos Shapira wrote:
 
 On 02/12/2007, Dave Augustus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  We are in the middle of migrating to a new colo and I first 
 heard about
  Cluster Suite with the release of 5.
 
  Our old colo used 2 different 2-node clusters using 
 hearbeat version 1. We had
  a 2-node cluster in Active/passive for the LVS director and 
 4 nodes as real
  servers. Our other 2-node cluster was file servers.
 
  I saw the Redhat Cluster Suite (RCS) and spent 2 weeks 
 trying to implement it-
  without success. I ran into bugs and couldn't get it to work right.
 
 Thanks. That's helpful to know.
 
 
  (Parenthecally let me say this: VERSION 2 ROCKS! With 
 version 1, you are
  limited to 2 nodes. With 2, as many as you want.)
 
 Yes I know that heartbeat 2.x should rock - when it runs. But having
 multiple core dumps on my filesystem doesn't exactly increase my
 confidence in it.
 
 
  So I went back to heartbeat and learned version 2. Now, we 
 have a 6-node
  cluster where ANY NODE can be a REAL SERVER OR a LVS 
 DIRECTOR. It was really
 
 That's my plan - to put both director and real servers on the same
 two nodes. As far as I'm aware it's possible also with version 1.
 
  cool when I learned how to do it. I spent 2 more weeks 
 learning it BUT I have
  a solution that works and has been stable since inception. 
 Note that we left
  the file servers in their own 2 node cluster.
 
 Which platform is it? Is it CentOS 5 x86_64 on an Intel Xeon?
 
 I suspect that maybe my problems are connected with this particular
 architecture.
 
 And possibly a general CentOS question - Is it practical to just
 install i386 packages of heartbeat on an x86_64 system?

Your running this under a Xen domU right?

You could try the i386 versions to see, but I wouldn't be surprised
if you end up with the same results.

Instead of a domU why not try running it out of an HVM which performs
greater level of abstraction. IF heartbeat is trying to use the low
level features of the network interface then that may be the reason
it is segfaulting in the para-virtualized machine.

 
  So, in summary, from my experience:
 
  1. forget RCS
  2. use Heartbeat in version 2 mode to control both LVS and 
 REAL Server
  functionality.
  3. This will allow you to sleep at night.
 
  Enjoy!


__
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by
the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged
and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient
of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto,
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the
original and any copy or printout thereof.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Replacement for Linux-HA (heartbeat) - RedHat cluster?

2007-11-30 Thread John R Pierce




Matt Shields wrote:

  
With a GUI that actually makes it more difficult to manage.  Learn to
use the command line tools and config files, it's so much easier.

  



then why in Gaea's name did they make the heartbeat config files XML
?? 

while XML -can- be human read, its a freekin' mess to read and edit and
maintain sanity.


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Replacement for Linux-HA (heartbeat) - RedHat cluster?

2007-11-30 Thread Amos Shapira
On 30/11/2007, Matt Shields [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Nov 30, 2007 3:57 PM, John R Pierce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Matt Shields wrote:
   Dump the cluste suite and use the LinuxVirtualServer.org packages.
 
  isn't that heartbeat and stuff repackaged?
 

 With a GUI that actually makes it more difficult to manage.  Learn to
 use the command line tools and config files, it's so much easier.

So it uses the same heartbeat as the one which comes in the
heartbeat CentOS 5 package?
I was hoping they implement their own thing.
The last thing I need now is glossy interface which hides the little
details that might help me understand what's wrong.

Unless that interface can magically configure heartbeat in a way that
it'll actually start running without core-dump'ing some of the
programs it comes with.

Thanks,

--Amos
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Replacement for Linux-HA (heartbeat) - RedHat cluster?

2007-11-30 Thread Amos Shapira
On 30/11/2007, Matt Shields [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 LVS is a group of tools that do a lot of different things, the two
 that you are interested in are:

 - heartbeat - provides failover if you have two nodes (active/active
 or active/passive)
 - ipvsadm/ldirectord - provides load balancing (ie. http(s) load
 balancer in front of multiple web servers)

 As stated in a previous post we have a number of these setup in our
 network and we handle a lot of traffic.  Some we're using for http(s)
 traffic, others smtp/pop/imap, others mysql (read only queries off
 replicas).  There's no end to what what you could use heartbeat or
 ipvsadm/ldirectord or both for.  Both packages can be installed from
 dag's repo.

Thanks.

What platform are you using? Mine is CentOS 5 on x86_64. It runs as a
Xen DomU but from what I read on the linux-ha users mailing list this
shouldn't be the issue. The production system will run on the bare
metal (not under Xen).

My experience with LVS at a previous workplace (a very large ISP) was
also excellent - they had a couple of LVS servers in front of hundreds
of mini-clusters (each such cluster service its own web or other
network application, sometimes sharing disks using DRBD).

The difference, I suspect, is that I'm trying this now with version
2.1.2 on CentOS 5 and x86_64, as opposed to possibly older version of
everything (RedHat version, LVS, hardware (i386)).

Thanks for your input,

--Amos
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Replacement for Linux-HA (heartbeat) - RedHat cluster?

2007-11-30 Thread Amos Shapira
On 30/11/2007, John R Pierce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Matt Shields wrote:

  With a GUI that actually makes it more difficult to manage. Learn to
 use the command line tools and config files, it's so much easier.




  then why in Gaea's name did they make the heartbeat config files XML ??

  while XML -can- be human read, its a freekin' mess to read and edit and
 maintain sanity.

I wish THAT was my problem :).

While I'm not fond of manually manipulating XML (XML is usually meant
to be touched by programs, not humans), I can cope with it if the f***
programs executed properly.

As it is now, even the BasicSanityCheck fails.

I'm trying to run the system-config-cluster thing and see what happens.

Cheers,

--Amos
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Replacement for Linux-HA (heartbeat) - RedHat cluster?

2007-11-30 Thread Matt Shields
On Nov 30, 2007 6:53 PM, Amos Shapira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On 30/11/2007, Matt Shields [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Take Xen out of the picture until you learn how heartbeat and
  ipvsadm/ldirectord actually work.  You could be having network issues
  because you are hosting it on a virtual server instead of on a real
  server.  So it's kinda hard to troubleshoot if you don't even know if
  your configs are broken.  Get two crappy boxes that you can load
  everything up on, configure them with heartbeat, get that working

 Thanks for your suggestion. The reason I use Xen (beyond the huge
 convenience) is that I don't have spare hardware to play with.

  where it will failover an IP.  then add some other service like
  ipvsadm/ldirectord, and take things one step at a time.  Don't try to
  setup everything all at once, it makes it harder to try to debug
  problems.

 That's exactly what (I think) I did - just stuck to instructions from
 someone who seems to have been in exactly the same position and got it
 working.

 As for network issues - I see the packets coming and going all right.
 But I also see programs just crash and burn - I've just executed
 BasicSanityCheck on the primary node which appeared to be working
 relatively fine a couple of minutes ago (at least it got more
 processes running after three minutes than the other node) and that
 failed too with core dumps.

  I'm using CentOS4 and RHEL4 using dag'd rpms on a few of the CentOS
  and RHEL boxes and built from source on some of the other ones.  I
  haven't had a chance to try out a CentOS 5 system yet.  But as to your
  stability questions, we've been using LVS for about 3 or 4 years now
  and never, ever had stability problems.

 So maybe I should try to get packages from dag, even though there are
 ones included in CentOS?

 Which exact version of hearbeat are you using right now? From reading
 the history of Linux-HA it appears there was a huge change between 1.x
 and 2.x


2.x


-- 
-matt
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Replacement for Linux-HA (heartbeat) - RedHat cluster?

2007-11-30 Thread Amos Shapira
On 30/11/2007, Matt Shields [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Take Xen out of the picture until you learn how heartbeat and
 ipvsadm/ldirectord actually work.  You could be having network issues
 because you are hosting it on a virtual server instead of on a real
 server.  So it's kinda hard to troubleshoot if you don't even know if
 your configs are broken.  Get two crappy boxes that you can load
 everything up on, configure them with heartbeat, get that working

Thanks for your suggestion. The reason I use Xen (beyond the huge
convenience) is that I don't have spare hardware to play with.

 where it will failover an IP.  then add some other service like
 ipvsadm/ldirectord, and take things one step at a time.  Don't try to
 setup everything all at once, it makes it harder to try to debug
 problems.

That's exactly what (I think) I did - just stuck to instructions from
someone who seems to have been in exactly the same position and got it
working.

As for network issues - I see the packets coming and going all right.
But I also see programs just crash and burn - I've just executed
BasicSanityCheck on the primary node which appeared to be working
relatively fine a couple of minutes ago (at least it got more
processes running after three minutes than the other node) and that
failed too with core dumps.

 I'm using CentOS4 and RHEL4 using dag'd rpms on a few of the CentOS
 and RHEL boxes and built from source on some of the other ones.  I
 haven't had a chance to try out a CentOS 5 system yet.  But as to your
 stability questions, we've been using LVS for about 3 or 4 years now
 and never, ever had stability problems.

So maybe I should try to get packages from dag, even though there are
ones included in CentOS?

Which exact version of hearbeat are you using right now? From reading
the history of Linux-HA it appears there was a huge change between 1.x
and 2.x

Thanks,

--Amos
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Replacement for Linux-HA (heartbeat) - RedHat cluster?

2007-11-30 Thread Matt Shields
On Nov 30, 2007 6:28 PM, Amos Shapira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On 30/11/2007, Matt Shields [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  LVS is a group of tools that do a lot of different things, the two
  that you are interested in are:
 
  - heartbeat - provides failover if you have two nodes (active/active
  or active/passive)
  - ipvsadm/ldirectord - provides load balancing (ie. http(s) load
  balancer in front of multiple web servers)
 
  As stated in a previous post we have a number of these setup in our
  network and we handle a lot of traffic.  Some we're using for http(s)
  traffic, others smtp/pop/imap, others mysql (read only queries off
  replicas).  There's no end to what what you could use heartbeat or
  ipvsadm/ldirectord or both for.  Both packages can be installed from
  dag's repo.

 Thanks.

 What platform are you using? Mine is CentOS 5 on x86_64. It runs as a
 Xen DomU but from what I read on the linux-ha users mailing list this
 shouldn't be the issue. The production system will run on the bare
 metal (not under Xen).

 My experience with LVS at a previous workplace (a very large ISP) was
 also excellent - they had a couple of LVS servers in front of hundreds
 of mini-clusters (each such cluster service its own web or other
 network application, sometimes sharing disks using DRBD).

 The difference, I suspect, is that I'm trying this now with version
 2.1.2 on CentOS 5 and x86_64, as opposed to possibly older version of
 everything (RedHat version, LVS, hardware (i386)).

 Thanks for your input,

Take Xen out of the picture until you learn how heartbeat and
ipvsadm/ldirectord actually work.  You could be having network issues
because you are hosting it on a virtual server instead of on a real
server.  So it's kinda hard to troubleshoot if you don't even know if
your configs are broken.  Get two crappy boxes that you can load
everything up on, configure them with heartbeat, get that working
where it will failover an IP.  then add some other service like
ipvsadm/ldirectord, and take things one step at a time.  Don't try to
setup everything all at once, it makes it harder to try to debug
problems.

I'm using CentOS4 and RHEL4 using dag'd rpms on a few of the CentOS
and RHEL boxes and built from source on some of the other ones.  I
haven't had a chance to try out a CentOS 5 system yet.  But as to your
stability questions, we've been using LVS for about 3 or 4 years now
and never, ever had stability problems.


-- 
-matt
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Replacement for Linux-HA (heartbeat) - RedHat cluster?

2007-11-30 Thread Amos Shapira
On 30/11/2007, Matt Shields [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Yup.  We use LVS for all types of failover senarios.  We use it for
 redundant firewall/vpn servers which use heartbeat for failing over

So you are using the same heartbeat that doesn't work for me? Or are
you refering to another package which provides a similar
functionality?

 the virtual IPs and services.  We also use LVS with ldirectord as
 redundant load balancers.  Read the docs, they explain how to set up a
 service to be started/stopped on failover

I've been digging the web for over a week now but it just doesn't work
the way it's supposed to, whatever I try.

Any other hints?

Thanks,

--Amos
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


RE: [CentOS] Replacement for Linux-HA (heartbeat) - RedHat cluster?

2007-11-30 Thread Robert - elists

then why in Gaea's name . snip

 

gaea?

 

whoa nellie, I got first dibs on preaching Jesus here

 

;-

 

Get in line.

 

:-)

 

-  rh

 

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


RE: [CentOS] Replacement for Linux-HA (heartbeat) - RedHat cluster?

2007-11-30 Thread Ross S. W. Walker
John R Pierce wrote:
 
 Matt Shields wrote:
  Dump the cluste suite and use the LinuxVirtualServer.org packages.
 
 isn't that heartbeat and stuff repackaged?

Visiting the web site it appears to be a load-balancer, not that that
wouldn't be useful in some scenarios, but it isn't really clustering
software that is to have an application run in active/passive or
active/active between multiple nodes cooperatively, with fencing and
shared storage, locking and all that goes with that.

-Ross

__
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by
the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged
and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient
of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto,
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the
original and any copy or printout thereof.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Replacement for Linux-HA (heartbeat) - RedHat cluster?

2007-11-30 Thread John R Pierce

Matt Shields wrote:

Dump the cluste suite and use the LinuxVirtualServer.org packages.


isn't that heartbeat and stuff repackaged?


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


RE: [CentOS] Replacement for Linux-HA (heartbeat) - RedHat cluster?

2007-11-30 Thread Ross S. W. Walker
Amos Shapira wrote:
 
 Hello,
 
 I'm beginning to give up on making Linux-HA's heartbeat work 
 for my environment (CentOS x86_64) and am wondering what 
 other option have I got to help me:
 1. Use IPVS to maintain a cluster of virtual servers, either 
 master/slave or load-balanced. 
 2. Use DRBD in master/slave fashion to keep a home-grown 
 application highly-available.
 
 The first thing I stumbled upon is RedHat Cluster Suite ( 
 http://www.linuxtopia.org/online_books/centos_linux_guides/cen
 tos_cluster_configuration_and_management/ 
 http://www.linuxtopia.org/online_books/centos_linux_guides/ce
 ntos_cluster_configuration_and_management/ ), from which I 
 also saw some packages on my CentOS servers.
 
 I've never heard of it before and am just starting to dig its 
 docs, but if someone here can confirm/deny that this is a 
 possible route to take it might save me some time or doubts. 

What isn't working with heartbeat?

It may be just that some help getting heartbeat working properly
is all you need?

If after working with it fully configured properly it still
doesn't work the way you need it then I'd look at another
clustering solution.

-Ross

__
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by
the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged
and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient
of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto,
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the
original and any copy or printout thereof.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Replacement for Linux-HA (heartbeat) - RedHat cluster?

2007-11-30 Thread Amos Shapira
On 30/11/2007, Matt Shields [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Dump the cluste suite and use the LinuxVirtualServer.org packages.
 You won't have a gui, but it will be better in the long run.  We're
 using that for quite a few clusters and handling about 30MBit/s on
 each of the clusters, I think it's around 10k concurrent connections.

I also need to fail-over DRBD (i.e. so if the primary goes down the
secondary will notice this, mount that DRBD partition and start the
server which uses the files on it) - will LVS give me that by itself
or will I need something else on top of it to do that?
I got the impression that this what Linux-HA's heartbeat adds to the
plain LVS but it doesn't work for me.

I'm really not concerned about GUI's - I'd rather edit config files
manually if they are documented well enough.

--Amos
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Replacement for Linux-HA (heartbeat) - RedHat cluster?

2007-11-30 Thread Matt Shields
On Nov 30, 2007 4:12 PM, Ross S. W. Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 John R Pierce wrote:
 
  Matt Shields wrote:
   Dump the cluste suite and use the LinuxVirtualServer.org packages.
 
  isn't that heartbeat and stuff repackaged?

 Visiting the web site it appears to be a load-balancer, not that that
 wouldn't be useful in some scenarios, but it isn't really clustering
 software that is to have an application run in active/passive or
 active/active between multiple nodes cooperatively, with fencing and
 shared storage, locking and all that goes with that.

 -Ross

LVS is a group of tools that do a lot of different things, the two
that you are interested in are:

- heartbeat - provides failover if you have two nodes (active/active
or active/passive)
- ipvsadm/ldirectord - provides load balancing (ie. http(s) load
balancer in front of multiple web servers)

As stated in a previous post we have a number of these setup in our
network and we handle a lot of traffic.  Some we're using for http(s)
traffic, others smtp/pop/imap, others mysql (read only queries off
replicas).  There's no end to what what you could use heartbeat or
ipvsadm/ldirectord or both for.  Both packages can be installed from
dag's repo.


-- 
-matt
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Replacement for Linux-HA (heartbeat) - RedHat cluster?

2007-11-30 Thread Robert Slade
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 09:30 +, Amos Shapira wrote:
 Hello,
 
 I'm beginning to give up on making Linux-HA's heartbeat work for my
 environment (CentOS x86_64) and am wondering what other option have I
 got to help me:
 1. Use IPVS to maintain a cluster of virtual servers, either
 master/slave or load-balanced. 
 2. Use DRBD in master/slave fashion to keep a home-grown application
 highly-available.
 
 The first thing I stumbled upon is RedHat Cluster Suite
 (http://www.linuxtopia.org/online_books/centos_linux_guides/centos_cluster_configuration_and_management/),
  from which I also saw some packages on my CentOS servers.
 
 I've never heard of it before and am just starting to dig its docs,
 but if someone here can confirm/deny that this is a possible route to
 take it might save me some time or doubts. 
 
 Thanks,
 
 --Amos


Perhaps you should read the CentOS docs - see
http://www.centos.org/docs/5/ - cluster suite overview and admin

Rob

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


[CentOS] Replacement for Linux-HA (heartbeat) - RedHat cluster?

2007-11-30 Thread Amos Shapira
Hello,

I'm beginning to give up on making Linux-HA's heartbeat work for my
environment (CentOS x86_64) and am wondering what other option have I got to
help me:
1. Use IPVS to maintain a cluster of virtual servers, either master/slave or
load-balanced.
2. Use DRBD in master/slave fashion to keep a home-grown application
highly-available.

The first thing I stumbled upon is RedHat Cluster Suite (
http://www.linuxtopia.org/online_books/centos_linux_guides/centos_cluster_configuration_and_management/),
from which I also saw some packages on my CentOS servers.

I've never heard of it before and am just starting to dig its docs, but if
someone here can confirm/deny that this is a possible route to take it might
save me some time or doubts.

Thanks,

--Amos
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Replacement for Linux-HA (heartbeat) - RedHat cluster?

2007-11-30 Thread Matt Shields
On Nov 30, 2007 6:40 PM, Matt Shields [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Nov 30, 2007 6:28 PM, Amos Shapira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  On 30/11/2007, Matt Shields [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   LVS is a group of tools that do a lot of different things, the two
   that you are interested in are:
  
   - heartbeat - provides failover if you have two nodes (active/active
   or active/passive)
   - ipvsadm/ldirectord - provides load balancing (ie. http(s) load
   balancer in front of multiple web servers)
  
   As stated in a previous post we have a number of these setup in our
   network and we handle a lot of traffic.  Some we're using for http(s)
   traffic, others smtp/pop/imap, others mysql (read only queries off
   replicas).  There's no end to what what you could use heartbeat or
   ipvsadm/ldirectord or both for.  Both packages can be installed from
   dag's repo.
 
  Thanks.
 
  What platform are you using? Mine is CentOS 5 on x86_64. It runs as a
  Xen DomU but from what I read on the linux-ha users mailing list this
  shouldn't be the issue. The production system will run on the bare
  metal (not under Xen).
 
  My experience with LVS at a previous workplace (a very large ISP) was
  also excellent - they had a couple of LVS servers in front of hundreds
  of mini-clusters (each such cluster service its own web or other
  network application, sometimes sharing disks using DRBD).
 
  The difference, I suspect, is that I'm trying this now with version
  2.1.2 on CentOS 5 and x86_64, as opposed to possibly older version of
  everything (RedHat version, LVS, hardware (i386)).
 
  Thanks for your input,

 Take Xen out of the picture until you learn how heartbeat and
 ipvsadm/ldirectord actually work.  You could be having network issues
 because you are hosting it on a virtual server instead of on a real
 server.  So it's kinda hard to troubleshoot if you don't even know if
 your configs are broken.  Get two crappy boxes that you can load
 everything up on, configure them with heartbeat, get that working
 where it will failover an IP.  then add some other service like
 ipvsadm/ldirectord, and take things one step at a time.  Don't try to
 setup everything all at once, it makes it harder to try to debug
 problems.

 I'm using CentOS4 and RHEL4 using dag'd rpms on a few of the CentOS
 and RHEL boxes and built from source on some of the other ones.  I
 haven't had a chance to try out a CentOS 5 system yet.  But as to your
 stability questions, we've been using LVS for about 3 or 4 years now
 and never, ever had stability problems.


Also, we're on a mix of i386 and x86_64 systems.  But for each cluster
the pair of nodes is identicle.


-- 
-matt
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Replacement for Linux-HA (heartbeat) - RedHat cluster?

2007-11-30 Thread Matt Shields
On Nov 30, 2007 4:30 AM, Amos Shapira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Hello,

 I'm beginning to give up on making Linux-HA's heartbeat work for my
 environment (CentOS x86_64) and am wondering what other option have I got to
 help me:
 1. Use IPVS to maintain a cluster of virtual servers, either master/slave or
 load-balanced.
 2. Use DRBD in master/slave fashion to keep a home-grown application
 highly-available.

 The first thing I stumbled upon is RedHat Cluster Suite (
 http://www.linuxtopia.org/online_books/centos_linux_guides/centos_cluster_configuration_and_management/),
 from which I also saw some packages on my CentOS servers.

 I've never heard of it before and am just starting to dig its docs, but if
 someone here can confirm/deny that this is a possible route to take it might
 save me some time or doubts.

Dump the cluste suite and use the LinuxVirtualServer.org packages.
You won't have a gui, but it will be better in the long run.  We're
using that for quite a few clusters and handling about 30MBit/s on
each of the clusters, I think it's around 10k concurrent connections.

-- 
-matt
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Replacement for Linux-HA (heartbeat) - RedHat cluster?

2007-11-30 Thread John R Pierce

Amos Shapira wrote:

Hello,

I'm beginning to give up on making Linux-HA's heartbeat work for my 
environment (CentOS x86_64) and am wondering what other option have I 
got to help me:
1. Use IPVS to maintain a cluster of virtual servers, either 
master/slave or load-balanced.
2. Use DRBD in master/slave fashion to keep a home-grown application 
highly-available.


The first thing I stumbled upon is RedHat Cluster Suite ( 
http://www.linuxtopia.org/online_books/centos_linux_guides/centos_cluster_configuration_and_management/), 
from which I also saw some packages on my CentOS servers.


I've never heard of it before and am just starting to dig its docs, 
but if someone here can confirm/deny that this is a possible route to 
take it might save me some time or doubts.


AFAIK, RHCS has at its core a spin of heartbeat.


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Replacement for Linux-HA (heartbeat) - RedHat cluster?

2007-11-30 Thread Matt Shields
On Nov 30, 2007 3:21 PM, Amos Shapira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On 30/11/2007, Matt Shields [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Dump the cluste suite and use the LinuxVirtualServer.org packages.
  You won't have a gui, but it will be better in the long run.  We're
  using that for quite a few clusters and handling about 30MBit/s on
  each of the clusters, I think it's around 10k concurrent connections.

 I also need to fail-over DRBD (i.e. so if the primary goes down the
 secondary will notice this, mount that DRBD partition and start the
 server which uses the files on it) - will LVS give me that by itself
 or will I need something else on top of it to do that?
 I got the impression that this what Linux-HA's heartbeat adds to the
 plain LVS but it doesn't work for me.

 I'm really not concerned about GUI's - I'd rather edit config files
 manually if they are documented well enough.

 --Amos

Yup.  We use LVS for all types of failover senarios.  We use it for
redundant firewall/vpn servers which use heartbeat for failing over
the virtual IPs and services.  We also use LVS with ldirectord as
redundant load balancers.  Read the docs, they explain how to set up a
service to be started/stopped on failover


-- 
-matt
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


Re: [CentOS] Replacement for Linux-HA (heartbeat) - RedHat cluster?

2007-11-30 Thread Matt Shields
On Nov 30, 2007 3:57 PM, John R Pierce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Matt Shields wrote:
  Dump the cluste suite and use the LinuxVirtualServer.org packages.

 isn't that heartbeat and stuff repackaged?


With a GUI that actually makes it more difficult to manage.  Learn to
use the command line tools and config files, it's so much easier.

-- 
-matt
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos