[Openstack-operators] Openstack HA active/passive vs. active/active

Robert van Leeuwen Robert.vanLeeuwen at spilgames.com
Tue Nov 26 13:05:03 UTC 2013


> Hello,
> I've read the documentation about Openstack HA (http://docs.openstack.org/high-availability-guide/content/index.html) and I successfully implemented the active/passive model (with corosync/pacemaker) for the two services Keystone and Glance (MySQL HA is based on
> Percona-XtraDB multi-master).
> I'd like to know from the experts, which one is the best (and possibly why) model for HA, between active/passive and active/active, basing on their usage experience (that is for sure longer than mine).

Hi,

No so much about active/passive and active/active but maybe helpful:
My personal opinion is that I would try to avoid cluster software as much as possible.
They are highly complex pieces of software and you run the chance of creating more issues then you are solving.

However, some piece will need to be highly available in your setup.
I would limit those to as few (and simple) technologies as possible.
In our company we already had HA load-balancers (a propriety solution) in house so we decided to use those to also make Openstack HA.

The only real pain point we have left is the neutron l3 router.
A possible solution would be to use our hardware routers for this (we use VLANs so this is pretty easy to setup/integrate).
We will probably go that way in the future.
(Currently we have no strict HA requirement for the router yet since all our production traffic to the cloud is going straight from/to the load balancers to the virtual machines without the l3-router in between)

Cheers,
Robert van Leeuwen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20131126/4c6ed869/attachment.html>


More information about the OpenStack-operators mailing list