Greetings,
The Red Hat Cluster Suite page says the following:
"For applications that require maximum uptime, a Red Hat Enterprise
Linux cluster with Red Hat Cluster Suite is the answer. Specifically
designed for Red Hat Enterprise Linux, Red Hat Cluster Suite provides
two distinct types of clustering:
* Application/Service Failover - Create n-node server clusters for
failover of key applications and services
* IP Load Balancing - Load balance incoming IP network requests
across a farm of servers"
The implication seems to be that the first type addresses high
availability, and the second scalability. What is the optimal way to
get both?
Please understand that I am already a user of GFS and LVS. I'm asking
the question because the two seemingly have nothing in common. For
example, cman knows about cluster membership and can immediately react
when a node leaves the cluster or is fenced. On the other hand, LVS
(together with either piranha or ldirectord) keeps a list of real
servers, periodically checking each and removing any found to be
unresponsive.
It seems like there are a couple drawbacks to this bifurcated design:
- once cman realizes a node has left the cluster, there is a delay
before ipvs updates its configuration, during which user requests can be
routed to a dead server
- two distinct sets of cluster configurations have to be maintained
Am I misunderstanding something fundamental, or is that the way it is?
-Jeff
--
Linux-cluster mailing list
Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
