|
On Tuesday 03 July 2007 13:46, Joseph Mack NA3T wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2007, Rio wrote:
>
> >>> http://linux-vserver.org/Welcome_to_Linux-VServer.org
> >>>
> >>> we have been running it for a year now with absolutely
> >>> no hiccups whatsoever and no excessive loading! we have
> >>> 84 virtual servers on 1 machine and 40 on
>
> I didn't get my point across it seems. Let's see if I can do
> a better job.
>
> You have one box which is running 84 instances of a virtual
> server and another box which has 40 instances. So you have
> two boxes which can appear to be 124 realservers?
>
to the outside world (not admins) the 124 virtual servers appear to be
individual discreet servers. i think i may be confused by the term
realservers.
> >> Trying to find out why people use virtual servers for
> >> realservers
>
> >> The next question then is why don't you have the big server
> >> which is currently split into 84 realservers as just one big
> >> realserver? If you need failover (do virtual servers fail?)
> >> why not just 5 machines (enough that you'll only loose 20%
> >> on failure)?
>
> I understand that its cheaper, less cooling etc to have a
> single large box than 84 separate boxes.
>
> > if i am understanding you to mean you want me to split it
> > into 84 complete virtual machines that advertise their own
> > virtual hardware? too much overhead and wasted resources.
>
> so you have 84 virtual machines but they don't appear to be
> 84 individual machines?
>
i was comparing the context oriented virtual servers using a single master
kernel on the host to 'virtual machines' such as that presented by vmware
with their own virtual hardware requiring complete o/s installs with kernels,
modules etc.
> > we do have several instances where virtualized hardware is
> > required. we have one host running esx server for just
> > that need. but by far the most common needs are easily met
> > using linux-vserver.
> >
> > if i understand you to mean combine the 84 servers into
> > one server running all the services, that cannot be. some
> > of those are rented colo space and i will not allow a
> > customer access to our hosts.
>
> OK so not all of your virtual instances are being used for
> LVS realservers.
>
at the moment LVS is not active in our network. I am just beginning to build
LVS into our system to control most if not all of our vservers.
> > i have become a firm believer
> > in context virtuals.
>
> what are "context virtuals" (nothing useful found in
> google).
bad description :) each of our virtual servers runs in its own 'context'
(unique number). i think the description from the linux-vserver website says
it much better than i possibly could:
"The Linux-VServer technology is a soft partitioning concept based on Security
Contexts which permits the creation of many independent Virtual Private
Servers (VPS) that run simultaneously on a single physical server at full
speed, efficiently sharing hardware resources.
A VPS provides an almost identical operating environment as a conventional
Linux server. All services, such as ssh, mail, web and database servers can
be started on such a VPS, without (or in special cases with only minimal)
modification, just like on any real server.
Each VPS has its own user account database and root password and is isolated
from other virtual servers, except for the fact that they share the same
hardware resources."
>
> > far less overhead than virtual hardware (who needs 84
> > kernels running all doing basically the same thing?).
>
> I thought you had 84 virtual machines. Clearly I don't know
> what you have.
>
yes 84 virtual servers not virtual machines. we do not virtualize hardware.
for us it is a waste of resources to do so.
> What is the hardware running these 84 machines (number CPUs,
> number NICs etc)? How many virtual instances are
> realservers? Why don't you just have a small number of
> realservers, each one getting a larger share of the
> resources rather than a large number of realservers, each of
> which gets a small fraction of the resources?
>
ok again i am confused by the term 'realserver'. does this indicate the
hardware machine itself and the top level operating system interfacing
with this hardware?
in this case we now only have 3 with 1 more vserver host and 1 discreet box to
be added soon
2 of them plus the new one to be added are tyan gx28 servers with 2 dual core
opteron processors giving it 4 cores, 16gb ram. one server has no need for
more than 2 nics so the 3 on-board are sufficient, but the other one uses the
3 built in nics plus a 4 nic card. this serves 5 discreet networks in
addition to our pvtnet and our own public net. when we change over to
mirroring/lvs control we will add nics to make all 3 servers identical.
another one which runs some vservers is not going to be controlled by lvs
because it is our backup server. that is an older dell 4x500mhz machine. the
vservers it runs are dedicated customer backup servers.
> Thanks Joe
>
> --
> Joseph Mack NA3T EME(B,D), FM05lw North Carolina
> jmack (at) wm7d (dot) net - azimuthal equidistant map
> generator at http://www.wm7d.net/azproj.shtml
> Homepage http://www.austintek.com/ It's GNU/Linux!
>
> _______________________________________________
> LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
>
--
Rio
|
