On 06/19/2015 01:28 PM, Daniel Gaston wrote:
On 19/06/2015 18:38, Oliver Nicholas wrote:
Unless you have some true HA requirements, it seems intuitively
wasteful to have 3 masters and 2 slaves (unless the cost of 5 nodes is
inconsequential to you and you hate the environment).
Any particular reason not to have three nodes which are acting both as
master and slaves?
None at all. I'm not a cluster or networking guru, and have only played with
mesos in
cloud-based settings so I wasn't sure how this would work. But it makes sense,
that way
the 'standby' masters are still participating in the zookeeper quorum while
still being
available to do real work as slave nodes.
Daniel. There is no such thing as a 'cluster guru'. It's all 'seat of
the pants' flying right now; so you are fine what you are doing and
propose. If codes do not exist to meet your specific needs and goals,
they can (should?) be created.
I'm working on an architectural expansion Where nodes (virtual, actual
or bare metal) migrate from master --> entrepreneur --> worker --> slave
--> embedded (bare metal or specially attached hardware. I'm proposing
to do all of this with the "Autonomy_Function" and decisions being made
bottom_up as opposed to the current top_down dichotomy. I'm prolly going
to have to 'fork codes' for a while to get things stable and then
hope they are included; when other minds see the validity of the ideas.
Surely one "box" can be set up as both master and slave. Moving slaves
to masters, should be an automatic function and will prolly will be
address in the future codes of mesos.
PS: Keep pushing your ideas and do not take no for an answer!
Mesos belongs to everybody.....
hth,
James
