Re: [ubuntu-uk] Redundency was Going back to the Dell deal...
Alan Pope wrote: > The protocol is explained in the page I linked to:- > > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SpecSpec > and further from there to:- > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SpecTemplate > > What I would do is create a new page:- > > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuNetworkApplicanceEdition > > and paste into it the contents of the SpecTemplate page then go nuts > editing it :) > > Make sure you link the wiki back to the blueprint you created, and vice > versa. > Done... > Give me a ping if you need some help. > Right - now need people to get over there and improve upon the "very high level version" I've written with some specific package suggestions, say :-) > Cheers, > Al. > -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Redundency was Going back to the Dell deal...
Hi Mark, On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 22:42 +0100, Mark Harrison wrote: > Alan Pope wrote: > > A very interesting idea. You could write a specification [0] for one and > > submit it as a blueprint [1] > > Done... (at least, entry into the specifications database.) > > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/ubuntu-network-appliance-edition > > > > I have no idea on the "protocol" for refining this - if someone wants to > create a wiki page in the right place (or give me "noddy instructions" > on where to create such a thing) this would be helpful. > The protocol is explained in the page I linked to:- https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SpecSpec and further from there to:- https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SpecTemplate What I would do is create a new page:- https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuNetworkApplicanceEdition and paste into it the contents of the SpecTemplate page then go nuts editing it :) Make sure you link the wiki back to the blueprint you created, and vice versa. Give me a ping if you need some help. Cheers, Al. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Redundency was Going back to the Dell deal...
Alan Pope wrote: > A very interesting idea. You could write a specification [0] for one and > submit it as a blueprint [1] Done... (at least, entry into the specifications database.) https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/ubuntu-network-appliance-edition I have no idea on the "protocol" for refining this - if someone wants to create a wiki page in the right place (or give me "noddy instructions" on where to create such a thing) this would be helpful. I have some ideas on what needs to be in the Spec (and like the format), but would rather bounce them off a couple of others before anything gets "formal" M. -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Redundency was Going back to the Dell deal...
Alan, Gosh - I'll have a look at that, and see whether I can put something together. I guess it's one of those areas where, if there are others interested, the spec will get refined into something useful... and if no-one else's interested even in debating, then the project would never have attracted developers anyway :-) M. Alan Pope wrote: > Hi Mark, > > On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 18:23 +0100, Mark Harrison wrote: > >> When it comes to network infrastructure - I find it notable that there's >> an "Ubuntu Desktop" (well, more than 1 - Kubuntu, Xubuntu, etc.) and an >> "Ubuntu Server" edition... but not an "Ubuntu network infrastructure >> edition". >> >> > > A very interesting idea. You could write a specification [0] for one and > submit it as a blueprint [1] which could potentially be discussed at the > Ubuntu Developer Summit [2] in Boston [3] at the end of October. > [...] -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Redundency was Going back to the Dell deal...
Hi Mark I understand why you keep re-iterating the point about business direction comes before personal belief, in this scenario, and hold no ill will towards you for it. To be honest it makes sense. My comments were just to point out that there are organisations out there that have taken the software route already successfully, and that there concerns are elsewhere. Will you consider Alan P's suggestion of constructing a blue print for a micro distro? I just been googling a bit and found one or two projects that are router facsimiles but nothing that seems to replicate exactly what you describe - but of course if someone knows better E -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark Harrison Sent: 11 September 2007 18:23 To: British Ubuntu Talk Subject: Re: [ubuntu-uk] Redundency was Going back to the Dell deal... Ian, I agree - my concern is not that I know anything BAD about the software clustering products... it's that I need to buy a "service that lets me sleep at night without worrying the phone will ring at 3 in the morning"... ... that means that the choice of support provider (whether internal staff or external company, BTW) needs to be 100% confident that this kind of solution will "just work and stay working." I guess where I differ from a lot of the Ubuntu users is that I have a set of decision criteria that run: - Reliable - Supportable - Cost-effective The reason I run Ubuntu for my servers is that it is: - Reliable (0% unplanned downtime this year - 30 minutes planned downtime, and that to install and test a new set of stored procedures on the database server) - Supportable (either from Canonical or a growing number of third parties) - Cost-effective This is something that many on the Ubuntu list may find distasteful. I care very little about "free as in speech." Many in the Linux community have told me that I "should" care about this, and given me lots of "moral reasons." Don't get me wrong - I care about morality - I spent a while before going to Uni working in an orphanage in Zimbabwe, where the concerns were about having enough food to eat, and books at school - and "in my own time" I am happy to campaign and evangelize for Open Source software. However, when I work for the company, I have a clear responsibility to use what, in my judgement, is going to be the BEST solution for the company. The reason I chose Ubuntu rather than any other Linux distro (and over the past 13 years, I've used Red Hat, SuSe, Gentoo and Debian, as well as SunOS, Solaris, DOS, OS/2, NT, 95, 98, 2000, XP, Vista and whatever the thing that Sequents used to run was called) is that, of all the Linux distros, Canonical has (as far as I can tell) the clearest vision of where it wants Linux to go... and seems to understand that the way to get more traction in the market is to appeal to people like me rather than preach to me and tell me I'm wrong. Many of the good Linux consultants I know (Nik Butler, Alan Pope, for two, both being active on this list) seem to either share this view, or be professional enough to supress any "preaching instinct" when talking to me :-) When it comes to network infrastructure - I find it notable that there's an "Ubuntu Desktop" (well, more than 1 - Kubuntu, Xubuntu, etc.) and an "Ubuntu Server" edition... but not an "Ubuntu network infrastructure edition". It would be an interesting "micro-distribution" to take Ubuntu Server, rip out most of it, and add in a few odd packages so that a box (or pair) were optimised and hardened for: - Firewalling - Load-balancing - SSL acceleration - IDS I have little doubt that there WILL be such a thing, and once there is, and a growing number of firms offering support on it, I will be ready to make that move. Regards, Mark Ian Pascoe wrote: > Hmm Ok, that fairly well answers my post of a couple of minutes ago. > > My only comment to the software load balancing, compensation clauses being > pushed out of sight for the moment, is that there are a number of clusters > out there run by various companies blah blah blah and they seem to use the > software with quite high efficiencies. Now these clusters are sized from > the small 2 node jobs up to the 125+ ones. In fact the most quoted common > concern appears to be that of both hardware failure and reliable backups. > > Ok, Ian is leaving the house so you can get the compensation clause back out > now > > E > > -----Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark Harrison > Sent: 10 September 2007 21:57 > To: British Ubuntu Talk > Subject: Re: [ubuntu-uk] Redundency was Going back to the Dell deal... > > > Alan Pope wrote: > >> Hi Mark, >> >> On Mon,
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Redundency was Going back to the Dell deal...
Hi Mark, On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 18:23 +0100, Mark Harrison wrote: > When it comes to network infrastructure - I find it notable that there's > an "Ubuntu Desktop" (well, more than 1 - Kubuntu, Xubuntu, etc.) and an > "Ubuntu Server" edition... but not an "Ubuntu network infrastructure > edition". > A very interesting idea. You could write a specification [0] for one and submit it as a blueprint [1] which could potentially be discussed at the Ubuntu Developer Summit [2] in Boston [3] at the end of October. During meetings at UDS* the specifications are discussed and re-worked. If approved, developer resources may be allocated in order to develop the product or enhancement for the next release. > It would be an interesting "micro-distribution" to take Ubuntu Server, > rip out most of it, and add in a few odd packages so that a box (or > pair) were optimised and hardened for: > Worth noting that the next release of Ubuntu (8.04) will be an LTS release. On the server this would give 5 years support, which is the kind of platform I guess a "Network Infrastructure" derivative would be just at home on. I'll be going to UDS again. I paid my own way to Sevilla in May [4], but Canonical have kindly offered to sponsor me this time. Cheers, Al. [0] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SpecSpec [1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu [2] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/sprints/uds-boston-2007 [3] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UDS-Boston [4] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UDS-Sevilla signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Redundency was Going back to the Dell deal...
Ian, I agree - my concern is not that I know anything BAD about the software clustering products... it's that I need to buy a "service that lets me sleep at night without worrying the phone will ring at 3 in the morning"... ... that means that the choice of support provider (whether internal staff or external company, BTW) needs to be 100% confident that this kind of solution will "just work and stay working." I guess where I differ from a lot of the Ubuntu users is that I have a set of decision criteria that run: - Reliable - Supportable - Cost-effective The reason I run Ubuntu for my servers is that it is: - Reliable (0% unplanned downtime this year - 30 minutes planned downtime, and that to install and test a new set of stored procedures on the database server) - Supportable (either from Canonical or a growing number of third parties) - Cost-effective This is something that many on the Ubuntu list may find distasteful. I care very little about "free as in speech." Many in the Linux community have told me that I "should" care about this, and given me lots of "moral reasons." Don't get me wrong - I care about morality - I spent a while before going to Uni working in an orphanage in Zimbabwe, where the concerns were about having enough food to eat, and books at school - and "in my own time" I am happy to campaign and evangelize for Open Source software. However, when I work for the company, I have a clear responsibility to use what, in my judgement, is going to be the BEST solution for the company. The reason I chose Ubuntu rather than any other Linux distro (and over the past 13 years, I've used Red Hat, SuSe, Gentoo and Debian, as well as SunOS, Solaris, DOS, OS/2, NT, 95, 98, 2000, XP, Vista and whatever the thing that Sequents used to run was called) is that, of all the Linux distros, Canonical has (as far as I can tell) the clearest vision of where it wants Linux to go... and seems to understand that the way to get more traction in the market is to appeal to people like me rather than preach to me and tell me I'm wrong. Many of the good Linux consultants I know (Nik Butler, Alan Pope, for two, both being active on this list) seem to either share this view, or be professional enough to supress any "preaching instinct" when talking to me :-) When it comes to network infrastructure - I find it notable that there's an "Ubuntu Desktop" (well, more than 1 - Kubuntu, Xubuntu, etc.) and an "Ubuntu Server" edition... but not an "Ubuntu network infrastructure edition". It would be an interesting "micro-distribution" to take Ubuntu Server, rip out most of it, and add in a few odd packages so that a box (or pair) were optimised and hardened for: - Firewalling - Load-balancing - SSL acceleration - IDS I have little doubt that there WILL be such a thing, and once there is, and a growing number of firms offering support on it, I will be ready to make that move. Regards, Mark Ian Pascoe wrote: > Hmm Ok, that fairly well answers my post of a couple of minutes ago. > > My only comment to the software load balancing, compensation clauses being > pushed out of sight for the moment, is that there are a number of clusters > out there run by various companies blah blah blah and they seem to use the > software with quite high efficiencies. Now these clusters are sized from > the small 2 node jobs up to the 125+ ones. In fact the most quoted common > concern appears to be that of both hardware failure and reliable backups. > > Ok, Ian is leaving the house so you can get the compensation clause back out > now > > E > > -Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark Harrison > Sent: 10 September 2007 21:57 > To: British Ubuntu Talk > Subject: Re: [ubuntu-uk] Redundency was Going back to the Dell deal... > > > Alan Pope wrote: > >> Hi Mark, >> >> On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 21:28 +0100, Mark Harrison wrote: >> >> >>> Others may have a different opinion, and if they're prepared to >>> underwrite (with funds lodged in an escrow account) my company's loss of >>> income were we to have any downtime because of an Ubuntu failure, I'm >>> willing to read their support proposals :-) >>> >> Do Cisco do that? >> >> :) >> >> Cheers, >> Al. >> > No, nor did I ask them to any more than I'd hold Canonical > responsible for use of Ubuntu in any place where their own consultants > hadn't specified it. > > However, the VAR who installed the Cisco 11000s (the LBs that Cisco had > bought from Arrowpoint and re-branded) for us - THEY did :-) > > And, ind
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Redundency was Going back to the Dell deal...
Hmm Ok, that fairly well answers my post of a couple of minutes ago. My only comment to the software load balancing, compensation clauses being pushed out of sight for the moment, is that there are a number of clusters out there run by various companies blah blah blah and they seem to use the software with quite high efficiencies. Now these clusters are sized from the small 2 node jobs up to the 125+ ones. In fact the most quoted common concern appears to be that of both hardware failure and reliable backups. Ok, Ian is leaving the house so you can get the compensation clause back out now E -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark Harrison Sent: 10 September 2007 21:57 To: British Ubuntu Talk Subject: Re: [ubuntu-uk] Redundency was Going back to the Dell deal... Alan Pope wrote: > Hi Mark, > > On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 21:28 +0100, Mark Harrison wrote: > >> Others may have a different opinion, and if they're prepared to >> underwrite (with funds lodged in an escrow account) my company's loss of >> income were we to have any downtime because of an Ubuntu failure, I'm >> willing to read their support proposals :-) > Do Cisco do that? > > :) > > Cheers, > Al. No, nor did I ask them to any more than I'd hold Canonical responsible for use of Ubuntu in any place where their own consultants hadn't specified it. However, the VAR who installed the Cisco 11000s (the LBs that Cisco had bought from Arrowpoint and re-branded) for us - THEY did :-) And, indeed, the following year, I got £210,000 in compensation out of them (not for the Load-Balancing, BTW, but for another "site not as promised" claim). I got a fairly good bonus that year :-) :-) Ah, the glory days of the dot com boom, I miss them :-( Of course, the supplier in question went into Chapter 11 shortly afterwards, and never really came out of it (their assets are owned by C&W now), but not because of that particularly warranty, I stress :-o Mark -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/ -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Redundency was Going back to the Dell deal...
Alan Pope wrote: > Hi Mark, > > On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 21:28 +0100, Mark Harrison wrote: > >> Others may have a different opinion, and if they're prepared to >> underwrite (with funds lodged in an escrow account) my company's loss of >> income were we to have any downtime because of an Ubuntu failure, I'm >> willing to read their support proposals :-) > Do Cisco do that? > > :) > > Cheers, > Al. No, nor did I ask them to any more than I'd hold Canonical responsible for use of Ubuntu in any place where their own consultants hadn't specified it. However, the VAR who installed the Cisco 11000s (the LBs that Cisco had bought from Arrowpoint and re-branded) for us - THEY did :-) And, indeed, the following year, I got £210,000 in compensation out of them (not for the Load-Balancing, BTW, but for another "site not as promised" claim). I got a fairly good bonus that year :-) :-) Ah, the glory days of the dot com boom, I miss them :-( Of course, the supplier in question went into Chapter 11 shortly afterwards, and never really came out of it (their assets are owned by C&W now), but not because of that particularly warranty, I stress :-o Mark -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Redundency was Going back to the Dell deal...
Cheers Mark
One question though. I've seen on the various clustering projects that they
all offer a type of load balancing so why not go for a software solution as
opposed to a hardware one?
Nevertheless, thanks for answering my question.
E
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark Harrison
Sent: 10 September 2007 11:01
To: British Ubuntu Talk
Subject: Re: [ubuntu-uk] Redundency was Going back to the Dell deal...
Ian,
Both :-)
We have a five-server cluster.
2 off, webheads [1]
2 off, database servers [2]
1 off, "spare box" [3]
[1] Webheads:
At the moment, all the traffic is going to one of them, but the other is
kept updated (rsync is your friend.)
The Plan [TM], once we get more traffic / income, is to put a hardware
load balancer (pair) in front of the pair, and split out the traffic
between them anyway. Hardware load balancer tend to give the twin
benefits of resilience and performance.
[2] Database servers:
One of them is live.
One of them is "backup" with, sort of, MySQL replication between them.
If the live one were to crash, I'd go in, change the file on the
webheads that tells them where to find a database server, and start with
the backup in seconds.
Two issues:
- The file on the webheads is NOT in /var/www it's in /var/ and included in code. Any pages that need to access the database
have an include("connection.php")... that file reads:
$dbpass=fgets(fopen("/var//","r"),14);
$dbpass=substr($dbpass,0,-1);
$dbuser=fgets(fopen("/var//c","r"),14);
$dbuser=substr($dbuser,0,-1);
$dbip=fgets(fopen("/var//","r"),14);
$dbip=substr($dbip,0,-1);
and then goes on to run the appropriate MySQL database commands,
returning a connection.
- MySQL replication doesn't work reliably, so every week, we go in and
re-create the backup database by hand. I'm almost tempted to write a
script file that does this hourly!
[3] Spare, spare, box
This sits with Ubuntu, MySql5, Apache, and PHP pre-installed, but NO DATA.
When (if) a server crashes, the plan is:
- 1, make the appropriate backup box live [1] or [2]
- 2, copy either the application, or the database onto the spare, spare,
box... and make THAT a backup box for the one that had failed.
- 3, try to work out what had gone wrong with the live box
Regards,
Mark
Ian Pascoe wrote:
> Mark et al
>
> When you say you have a spare box lying around waiting for a catasrophe to
> happen, is it literally tucked away in storage somewhere, or is it
> pre-connected to the farm but just powered down?
>
> The reason I ask is whether you physically alternate the backup box or
just
> power up / power down one box sequentially in the farm at predefined
> timespans?
>
> E
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark Harrison
> Sent: 07 September 2007 21:23
> To: British Ubuntu Talk
> Subject: Re: [ubuntu-uk] Going back to the Dell deal...
>
>
> Michael Holloway wrote:
>
>> 2. How many Linux users would buy a one? I'm not sure i can answer this,
>>
> but i imagine not too many. Most linux users like to customise their
> machines, and put all the latest and greatest (or cheapest and oldest)
> compenents into it.
>
> 10 years ago, that would have been me. In fact, about 10 years ago I
> _did_ build my Own PC (a Pentium-90 in fact.)
>
> Now, I want a machine that works, with an operating system that works.
>
> Don't get me wrong - I work in IT, I'm into the latest toys as much as
> the next geek, but desktop O/Ss aren't an exciting playground for me
> compared to Ajax apps :-)
>
> As I said, I want a machine that works, with an operating system that
> works. Hmm... let me think? Should I go with (out of date) XP? Should I
> go with (utterly, cripplingly slow) Vista? or... can we think of another
> O/S that might run a lot faster on modern laptop hardware AND be more
> reliable?
>
> I'd be INCREDIBLY tempted to go with a pre-installed,
> manufacturer-supported, Linux-laptop next time round.
>
> Mainstream buyers have a different mind-set, and the "Dell with Ubuntu
> pre-installed" is hitting a lot more of those buttons than "download
> this distribution" ever did.
>
> The worst case is that Dell do the work (or get Canonical to) to come up
> with a standard image for their Ubuntu laptops, and that image sits on a
> server farm in Ireland not being installed from much. Net cost to Dell,
> a small amount of disk space. Net benefit to Dell, marginal increase in
> customer choice.
>
> Marginal benefit to Ubuntu - huge - endorsement from Dell that our
> chosen distro is supported by the biggest and the best. (Yes, I know, HP
&
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Redundency was Going back to the Dell deal...
Hi Mark, On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 21:28 +0100, Mark Harrison wrote: > Others may have a different opinion, and if they're prepared to > underwrite (with funds lodged in an escrow account) my company's loss of > income were we to have any downtime because of an Ubuntu failure, I'm > willing to read their support proposals :-) > Do Cisco do that? :) Cheers, Al. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Redundency was Going back to the Dell deal...
Alan Pope wrote: > Hi Mark, > > On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 11:00 +0100, Mark Harrison wrote: > >> Hardware load balancer tend to give the twin >> benefits of resilience and performance. >> >> > > ..and another single point of failure. :) > > Cheers, > > Al. Al, Yeah - that's why I've (in the past) used a pair of them with heart-beating between them. Sadly, that MORE than doubles the cost, since the heartbeating functionality tends to be added-cost option. and before anyone says "Cost, Mark? Surely you could use an additional pair of multi-homed Ubuntu boxes with XXX package running between them for sticky load balancing", I know I could in principle but I also know that I've run Cisco (Arrowpoint) loadbalancers for literally YEARS with zero maintenance, and 100% reliability across quite big webhead clusters ... I have that level of confidence in Ubuntu server for running webheads and database clusters... but not for "network infrastructure boxes" (yet.) Others may have a different opinion, and if they're prepared to underwrite (with funds lodged in an escrow account) my company's loss of income were we to have any downtime because of an Ubuntu failure, I'm willing to read their support proposals :-) Mark -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Redundency was Going back to the Dell deal...
On 10/09/2007, Alan Pope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 11:00 +0100, Mark Harrison wrote: > > Hardware load balancer tend to give the twin > > benefits of resilience and performance. > > > > ..and another single point of failure. :) Maybe that's why he said (pair) of load balancers? :-) I know what you're saying though - it's very hard to design a system that has no single weakness. > Cheers, > Al. Hwyl, Neil. -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Redundency was Going back to the Dell deal...
Hi Mark, On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 11:00 +0100, Mark Harrison wrote: > Hardware load balancer tend to give the twin > benefits of resilience and performance. > ..and another single point of failure. :) Cheers, Al. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Redundency was Going back to the Dell deal...
Ian,
Both :-)
We have a five-server cluster.
2 off, webheads [1]
2 off, database servers [2]
1 off, "spare box" [3]
[1] Webheads:
At the moment, all the traffic is going to one of them, but the other is
kept updated (rsync is your friend.)
The Plan [TM], once we get more traffic / income, is to put a hardware
load balancer (pair) in front of the pair, and split out the traffic
between them anyway. Hardware load balancer tend to give the twin
benefits of resilience and performance.
[2] Database servers:
One of them is live.
One of them is "backup" with, sort of, MySQL replication between them.
If the live one were to crash, I'd go in, change the file on the
webheads that tells them where to find a database server, and start with
the backup in seconds.
Two issues:
- The file on the webheads is NOT in /var/www it's in /var/ and included in code. Any pages that need to access the database
have an include("connection.php")... that file reads:
$dbpass=fgets(fopen("/var//","r"),14);
$dbpass=substr($dbpass,0,-1);
$dbuser=fgets(fopen("/var//c","r"),14);
$dbuser=substr($dbuser,0,-1);
$dbip=fgets(fopen("/var//","r"),14);
$dbip=substr($dbip,0,-1);
and then goes on to run the appropriate MySQL database commands,
returning a connection.
- MySQL replication doesn't work reliably, so every week, we go in and
re-create the backup database by hand. I'm almost tempted to write a
script file that does this hourly!
[3] Spare, spare, box
This sits with Ubuntu, MySql5, Apache, and PHP pre-installed, but NO DATA.
When (if) a server crashes, the plan is:
- 1, make the appropriate backup box live [1] or [2]
- 2, copy either the application, or the database onto the spare, spare,
box... and make THAT a backup box for the one that had failed.
- 3, try to work out what had gone wrong with the live box
Regards,
Mark
Ian Pascoe wrote:
> Mark et al
>
> When you say you have a spare box lying around waiting for a catasrophe to
> happen, is it literally tucked away in storage somewhere, or is it
> pre-connected to the farm but just powered down?
>
> The reason I ask is whether you physically alternate the backup box or just
> power up / power down one box sequentially in the farm at predefined
> timespans?
>
> E
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark Harrison
> Sent: 07 September 2007 21:23
> To: British Ubuntu Talk
> Subject: Re: [ubuntu-uk] Going back to the Dell deal...
>
>
> Michael Holloway wrote:
>
>> 2. How many Linux users would buy a one? I'm not sure i can answer this,
>>
> but i imagine not too many. Most linux users like to customise their
> machines, and put all the latest and greatest (or cheapest and oldest)
> compenents into it.
>
> 10 years ago, that would have been me. In fact, about 10 years ago I
> _did_ build my Own PC (a Pentium-90 in fact.)
>
> Now, I want a machine that works, with an operating system that works.
>
> Don't get me wrong - I work in IT, I'm into the latest toys as much as
> the next geek, but desktop O/Ss aren't an exciting playground for me
> compared to Ajax apps :-)
>
> As I said, I want a machine that works, with an operating system that
> works. Hmm... let me think? Should I go with (out of date) XP? Should I
> go with (utterly, cripplingly slow) Vista? or... can we think of another
> O/S that might run a lot faster on modern laptop hardware AND be more
> reliable?
>
> I'd be INCREDIBLY tempted to go with a pre-installed,
> manufacturer-supported, Linux-laptop next time round.
>
> Mainstream buyers have a different mind-set, and the "Dell with Ubuntu
> pre-installed" is hitting a lot more of those buttons than "download
> this distribution" ever did.
>
> The worst case is that Dell do the work (or get Canonical to) to come up
> with a standard image for their Ubuntu laptops, and that image sits on a
> server farm in Ireland not being installed from much. Net cost to Dell,
> a small amount of disk space. Net benefit to Dell, marginal increase in
> customer choice.
>
> Marginal benefit to Ubuntu - huge - endorsement from Dell that our
> chosen distro is supported by the biggest and the best. (Yes, I know, HP
> / IBM / RedHat, but heh... Dell has the biggest mindshare for desktops /
> laptops, I suspect.)
>
>
> And, for people like me, who are already on pure Ubuntu-servers at work
> (4 in the operational farm, 2 development servers, and a spare box
> sitting around to swap in in the event of catasrophic hardware failure),
> this has a marginal benefit to ME even if I never buy a Dell Linux
> Laptop - it helps convince my board (who to be fair, I've trained to
> trust my technical judgement) that I am backing the right horse with
> Ubuntu.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark
>
> --
> ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
> https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
>
>
>
>
--
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https:
