Open Stack

We've also always done the same.  We deploy any cloud with a minimum of 3 (quorum, etc) but when the database or message queue needs to scale up, the other components probably need to as well so making an equal replica of everything across the environment. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 26, 2017, at 9:13 AM, David Medberry <openstack at medberry.net> wrote:
> 
> I'm not aware of any studies as per se, but we have long run rabbitmq, MySQL, and all the API endpoints on the same three nodes. 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Aug 25, 2017 6:12 PM, "Imtiaz Chowdhury" <imtiaz.chowdhury at workday.com> wrote:
>> Hi Openstack operators,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Most Openstack HA deployment use 3 node database cluster, 3 node rabbitMQ cluster and 3 Controllers. I am wondering whether there are any studies done that show the pros and cons of co-locating database and messaging service with the Openstack control services.  In other words, I am very interested in learning about advantages and disadvantages, in terms of ease of deployment, upgrade and overall API performance, of having 3 all-in-one Openstack controller over a more distributed deployment model.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> References to any work done in this area will be highly appreciated.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thanks, 
>> Imtiaz
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-operators mailing list
>> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20170826/5750b327/attachment.html>