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

Robert van Leeuwen Robert.vanLeeuwen at spilgames.com
Thu Nov 28 10:35:43 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.

> Hi Robert,
> do you mean try to NOT use pacemaker/corosync ?
> they say it’s about the best cluster software around… but I understand your point which suggests more simplicity…


I agree that Pacemaker is probably the best general purpose cluster software out there but it also a relatively complex beast to get right.

However, I also think it is generally easier to just have one component highly available and not HA software all over the place.
I think a highly available loadbalancer (with whatever cluster solution you are comfortable with) is way easier to setup and maintain.
When you have the proper loadbalancer solution setting up highly available resources is just a few minutes work.

If you have a serious amount of traffic it is not unlikely that the loadbalancer is needed for something anyway, might as well use it properly :)

Cheers,
Robert van leeuwen




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20131128/54a74309/attachment.html>


More information about the OpenStack-operators mailing list