Re: Pirahna, Ultra Monkey, any others?

[Keith Barrett <kbarrett@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul Lussier wrote:
> Additionally, as I see it, there seem to be 3 ways to go right now (not in any
> order of preference):
> 
>         1. Use Pirahna
>         2. Use UltraMonkey
>         3. Cobble the pieces together yourself

This is probably correct.

> I'd like to be able to fully understand what's needed for option 3.  It is
> forseeable that there would be people who want to do things the hard way, and
> I'd like to be able to fully document this option.

Disadvantages are probably obvious, especially if you must have
some sort of commercial support in your setup. Some Advantages:

1. Greater flexibility. Creating your own setup when the packaged solutions
   don't fit perfectly. Some people are doing interesting hybrid setups.

2. Utilizing improved components asap when changes come out.

Probably more

> I see this document containing instructions on all 3 options, and act as a
> central repository and single document for LVS-HA.
Cool!

> So, to restate my question, is there anything else that's needed to cobble
> together an LVS-HA cluster other than:
> 
>         - ipvs kernel patch
>         - mon/fping
>         - Period.pm
>         - heartbeat

The components listed do not apply to piranha. piranha does not use heartbeat
or mon (it has it's own). All Clustering options will need LVS and ipvs.

> Also, I guess I'd like to know whether or not you see any merit in this?  Do
> people feel the need for better LVS-HA documentation, or do you feel what's
> out there is sufficient?

Did you visit the HA and LVS web sites? A lot of what you are planning might
already exist and save you work.

-- 

Keith Barrett
Red Hat Inc. HA Team
kbarrett@xxxxxxxxxx