Thanks Simon - that is what I thought... So my question would be then, haproxy vs native ACS/mysql connector going to galera1/galera2/etc...will figure out, for now we use haproxy for mysql/galera loadbalancing...
THanks a lot Simon, Andrija On 5 June 2015 at 15:18, Simon Weller <swel...@ena.com> wrote: > > Personally, I think that Gallera is always going to be a safer option, as > it handles conflict resolution natively. Having said that, it appears care > has been taken in designing the ACS MGMT DB integration so that the chance > of conflicts is very low. Galera requires a 3 nodes minimum, so it's a lot > of hardware unless you've got plans to use it elsewhere in your > organisation. > > The downside to Galera, is that it's synchronous replication, so it needs > very low latency between nodes. That doesn't make it a good candidate for > geographic separation between DB nodes for a DR scenario. > > You're understanding of the replication structure, as based on the design > document is correct. MySQL (or Galera) handles all the replication. ACS > just handles which node it's writing and reading from. In a 2 node native > MySQL cluster, it's expected that you are setup for cross master-master > replication. > > - Si > ________________________________________ > From: Andrija Panic <andrija.pa...@gmail.com> > Sent: Friday, June 5, 2015 2:41 AM > To: d...@cloudstack.apache.org > Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: database high availability question vs haproxy > > Hi Simon, > > thanks for the link - actually I have already read this - but Im still > seaking for some answeres :) : > > - real world experience with DB HA in general - is i better to use > haproxy(clustered/redudant) for mysql towards Galera cluster - or simply to > reference 2 nodes (1 as master, another as slave) with native ACS DB HA - > silly question but anyway... > - my understanding - ACS just pings and connects to master or slave (all > replication etc, is done from my side, not from ACS) ? > > Thanks again and any info is greatly appreciated. > > Andrija > > On 4 June 2015 at 16:23, Simon Weller <swel...@ena.com> wrote: > > > Andrija, > > > > Here is the original design document, and it should give you a better > idea > > of what is implemented today: > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=34838207 > > > > We have plans to test this in our lab soon, but just haven't got around > to > > it yet. > > > > - Si > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: Andrija Panic <andrija.pa...@gmail.com> > > Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 9:08 AM > > To: d...@cloudstack.apache.org; users@cloudstack.apache.org > > Subject: Re: database high availability question vs haproxy > > > > Anyone :) ? > > > > On 31 May 2015 at 00:26, Andrija Panic <andrija.pa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I would have a question on database HA feature in db.properties ( > > > > > > http://cloudstack-administration.readthedocs.org/en/latest/reliability.html#configuring-database-high-availability > > > ) > > > > > > If I understand correctly, it is up to the admin to provide appropriate > > > mysql HA (active-active, galera, etc) and ACS management server will > > JUST > > > try to connect to slaves if the master is down ? > > > > > > We are running Galera, with haproxy/keepalived, and by using stoping > > > haproxy, it takes i.e. 6sec for keepalived to detect haproxy is down, > and > > > failover IP to another host. > > > > > > During these 6 seconds, ACS managemnt server goes dead, because of this > > DB > > > unavailability. > > > > > > So my wondering, is better to use ACS db HA feature, instead of > > > loadbalancer for this specific purpose ? > > > (we are also using haproxy/keepalived for management server > loadbalancing > > > - 2 servers in backend...) > > > > > > Any experience shared is really appreciated ! > > > -- > > > > > > Andrija Panić > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Andrija Panić > > > > > > -- > > Andrija Panić > -- Andrija Panić
