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

Jay Pipes jaypipes at gmail.com
Fri Nov 29 14:53:41 UTC 2013


On 11/28/2013 05:35 AM, Robert van Leeuwen wrote:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>> > 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.

Well said. Agree completely.

-jay




More information about the OpenStack-operators mailing list