[openstack-dev] [fuel] What to do when a controller runs out of space

Eugene Nikanorov enikanorov at mirantis.com
Mon Oct 5 10:56:48 UTC 2015


1) Pacemaker is not under our company's control, we can't assure its quality
2) it has terrible UX
3) it is not reliable

(3) is not evaluation of the project itself, but just a logical consequence
of (1) and (2).
As a part of escalation team I can say that it has cost our team thousands
of man hours of head-scratching, staring at pacemaker logs which value are
usually slightly below zero.

Most of openstack services (in fact, ALL api servers) are stateless, they
don't require any cluster management (also, they don't need to be moved in
case of lack of space).
Statefull services like neutron agents have their states being a function
of db state and are able to syncronize it with the server without external

So now usage of pacemaker can be only justified for cases where service's
clustering mechanism requires active monitoring (rabbitmq, galera)
But even there, examples when we are better off without pacemaker are all


On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Sergey Vasilenko <svasilenko at mirantis.com>

> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Eugene Nikanorov <enikanorov at mirantis.com
> > wrote:
>> No pacemaker for os services, please.
>> We'll be moving out neutron agents from pacemaker control in 8.0, other
>> os services don't need it too.
> could you please provide your arguments.
> /sv
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20151005/bff6bc42/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list