[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

[Linux-cluster] Cluster vs Distributed? & MySQL Cluster?



> You should be able to automate this step, at least, mostly.  If you are
> using Red Hat Enterprise Linux or Fedora Core, you can automate most of
> the installation and configuration using Kickstart.

I've looked at Kickstart, seems darn complicated in that there are endless 
things you need to make sure are in there. I know after installing a machine 
there is a default one built but is that enough?

> LVS appears to web (or other) network clients to be a high-capacity
> single system.  In fact, you probably *are* using LVS right now -- it's

Right, looks like a single PC to a user for example, maybe I was thinking 
something else like an SSI system where I just add nodes to add resources. 
I've created various clusters for my various services, web, mail, mysql, etc.

> It all depends on what you're trying to do.  Could you draw us a
> picture/diagram?  :)

Well, like anyone, I just want to use my servers in a better manner. Rather 
than constantly having to upgrade, I prefer the idea of just adding a node or 
more when needed. I have a large number of blade servers (left over from a 
kaput ISP) and so have been using those.

As such, I've created multiple clusters which all share GFS filesystems. I 
have web, mail, mysql clusters which all share data. I've written basic 
scripts to allow for the various needs of the different machines. 

Then I use Radware load balancers in front of it all but am thinking of trying 
out some of the various Linux based LB's that are out there. I'd like 
something that does not take a specialist to maintain :).

Things seem to work well but I'm just wondering if I'm missing more of the 
potential of the Linux Cluster.

PS: I saw someone asking about sharing data on MySQL, that's something I'd 
love to do. In fact, I'd like to get rid of the big box IBM servers over using 
smaller blade servers. Problem is, the blade servers don't allow for much 
memory, from 512 to 2GB. the IBM's allow for 5GB's. But I wonder if I could 
still get away with many low memory MySQL servers sharing GFS storage?
I would guess that one or more would write but that many could read.

Mike




[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]