|
On 20/11/09 21:58, Jon Gray wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> We're currently using nanny/pulse but it seems like nanny generates a
> lot of processes and open files and we're concerned about resource usage
> as we scale. We currently have about 60 virtual hosts but it's likely
> that we will reach 100 over the next 12 months. Anyone have any
> positive/negative arguments for another solution like
> ldirectord/heartbeat or keepalived? Are they all essentially the same?
I'm in the process of implementing a piranha (nanny/pulse) solution,
chosen because it's the "default" on our O/S of choice (CentOS), has
easy-to-follow set up documentation, and seems easy to set up. I have a
whole bunch of stuff to get off the ground yesterday and didn't have the
free cycles to investigate any alternatives.
So, I'd be interested in some discussion about this too, ie. the
differences between nanny/pulse, ldirectord/heartbeat, keepalived, other
solutions?
R.
_______________________________________________
Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at:
http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/
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
|
