Hi all,
I'm trying to decide whether I really need a cluster implementation to do
what I want to do and I figured I'd solicit opinions.
Essentially I want to have two machines running as virtualization hosts
with libvirt/kvm. I have shared iSCSI storage available to both hosts and
have to decide how to configure the storage for use with libvirt. Right
now I see three possibilities:
1. Setting an iSCSI storage pool in libvirt
Pros: Migration seems painless, including live migration
Cons: Need to pre-allocate LUNs on iSCSI box.
Does not seem to take advantage of iSCSI offloading or multipathing
2. Setting up a two-node cluster and running CLVM
Pros: Very flexible storage management (is snapshotting supported yet in clvm?)
Automatic failover
Cons: Cluster infrastructure adds complexity, more potential for bugs
Possible split brain issues?
3. A single iSCSI block device with partitions for each VM mounted on both hosts
Pros: Easy migration, setup
Cons: Two hosts accessing the same block device outside of a
cluster seems like it might lead to disaster
Right now I actually like option 3 but I'm wondering if I really am asking
for trouble accessing a block device simultaneously on two hosts without a
clustering infrastructure. I did this a while back with a shared-SCSI box
and it seemed to work. I would never be accessing the same partition on
both hosts and I understand that all partitioning has to be done while the
other host is off, but is there something else I'm missing here?
Also, are people out there running option 2? Does it make sesne to set up
a cluster as small as 2-nodes for HA virtualization or do I really need
more nodes for it to be worthwhile? I do have all the fencing
infrastructure I might need (PDUs and Dracs).
any help would be appreciated. thanks
-alan
--
Linux-cluster mailing list
Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
