On 02/12/2007, Dave Augustus <davea@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> We are in the middle of migrating to a new colo and I first heard about
> Cluster Suite with the release of 5.
>
> Our old colo used 2 different 2-node clusters using hearbeat version 1. We had
> a 2-node cluster in Active/passive for the LVS director and 4 nodes as real
> servers. Our other 2-node cluster was file servers.
>
> I saw the Redhat Cluster Suite (RCS) and spent 2 weeks trying to implement it-
> without success. I ran into bugs and couldn't get it to work right.
Thanks. That's helpful to know.
>
> (Parenthecally let me say this: VERSION 2 ROCKS! With version 1, you are
> limited to 2 nodes. With 2, as many as you want.)
Yes I know that heartbeat 2.x should rock - when it runs. But having
multiple core dumps on my filesystem doesn't exactly increase my
confidence in it.
>
> So I went back to heartbeat and learned version 2. Now, we have a 6-node
> cluster where ANY NODE can be a REAL SERVER OR a LVS DIRECTOR. It was really
That's my plan - to put both director and "real servers" on the same
two nodes. As far as I'm aware it's possible also with version 1.
> cool when I learned how to do it. I spent 2 more weeks learning it BUT I have
> a solution that works and has been stable since inception. Note that we left
> the file servers in their own 2 node cluster.
Which platform is it? Is it CentOS 5 x86_64 on an Intel Xeon?
I suspect that maybe my problems are connected with this particular
architecture.
And possibly a general CentOS question - Is it practical to just
install i386 packages of heartbeat on an x86_64 system?
>
> So, in summary, from my experience:
>
> 1. forget RCS
> 2. use Heartbeat in version 2 mode to control both LVS and REAL Server
> functionality.
> 3. This will allow you to sleep at night.
>
> Enjoy!
Thanks.
--Amos
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
