[Linux-cluster] Linux-cluster Digest, Vol 82, Issue 19

[Anuj]

Hi,
Hello to all !

will you please guide me how can do a practice of clustrign as well as
loadbalancer for testing enviorment can all of you please guide me what are
the basic requirements

i have three centos machine apache,Mysql and postfix is runing on these
machines


-- 
*Regards.*.//
Anuj Singh Chauhan
(Voice): 09013203509*
*


On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:30 PM, <linux-cluster-request at redhat.com> wrote:

> Send Linux-cluster mailing list submissions to
>        linux-cluster at redhat.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        linux-cluster-request at redhat.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        linux-cluster-owner at redhat.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Linux-cluster digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Cluster with shared storage on low budget (Gordan Bobic)
>   2. Re: Cluster with shared storage on low budget (Jeff Sturm)
>   3. Re: Cluster with shared storage on low budget (Gordan Bobic)
>   4. Re: Cluster with shared storage on low budget (Bob Peterson)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 13:31:42 +0000
> From: Gordan Bobic <gordan at bobich.net>
> To: linux clustering <linux-cluster at redhat.com>
> Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster] Cluster with shared storage on low budget
> Message-ID: <4D5A803E.5090106 at bobich.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Nikola Savic wrote:
> > Gordan Bobic wrote:
> >> Something else just occurs to me - you mentioned MySQL. You do realize
> >> that the performance of it will be attrocious on a shared cluster file
> >> system (ANY shared cluster file system), right? Unless you only intend
> >> to run mysqld on a single node at a time (in which case there's no
> >> point in putting it on a cluster file system).
> >
> >   MySQL Master and Slave(s) will run on single node. No two MySQL
> > instances will run on same set of data. Shared storage for MySQL data
> > should enable easier movement of MySQL instance between nodes. Eg. when
> > MySQL master needs to be moved from one node to other, I assume it would
> > be easier with DRBD, because I would "only" need to stop MySQL on one
> > node and start it on other configured to use same set of data.
>
> There is a better way to do that. Run DRBD in active-passive mode, and
> grab the fail-over scripts from heartbeat. Then set up a dependency in
> cluster.conf that will handle a combined service of DRBD disk (handling
> active/passive switch), file system (mounting the fs once the DRBD
> becomes active locally, and mysql. You define them as dependant on each
> other in cluster.conf by suitable nesting.
>
> > Additionally, floating IP address assigned to MySQL master would need to
> > be re-assigned to new node.
>
> You can make that IP a part of the dependency stack mentioned above.
>
> > Slaves would also need to be restarted to
> > connect to new master. Even without floating IP used only my MySQL
> > Master, slaves and web application can easily be reconfigured to use new
> > IP. Do you see problem in this kind of setup?
>
> If the IP fails over and the FS is consistent you don't need to change
> any configs - MySQL slaves will re-try connecting until they succeed.
> Just make sure your bin-logs are on the same mount as the rest of MySQL,
> since they have to fail over with the rest of the DB.
>
> Gordan
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 10:55:43 -0500
> From: Jeff Sturm <jeff.sturm at eprize.com>
> To: linux clustering <linux-cluster at redhat.com>
> Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster] Cluster with shared storage on low budget
> Message-ID:
>        <64D0546C5EBBD147B75DE133D798665F0855C0F4 at hugo.eprize.local>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: linux-cluster-bounces at redhat.com
> [mailto:linux-cluster-bounces at redhat.com]
> > On Behalf Of Gordan Bobic
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 7:05 AM
> >
> > Volume resizing is, IMO, over-rated and unnecessary in most cases,
> except where data
> > growth is quite mind-boggling (in which case you won't be using MySQL
> anyway).
>
> We actually resize volumes often.  Some of our storage volumes have 30
> LUNs or more.  We have so many because we've virtualized most of our
> infrastructure, and some of the hosts are single-purpose hosts.
>
> We don't want to allocate too more storage in advance, simply because
> it's easier to grow than to shrink.  Stop the host, grow the volume,
> e2fsck/resize2fs, start up and go.  Much nicer than increasing disk
> capacity on physical hosts.
>
> CLVM works well for this, but that's about all it's good for IMHO.  I
> prefer to use the SAN's native volume management over CLVM when
> available.
>
> Haven't tried DRBD yet but I'm really tempted... it sounds like it has
> come a long way since its modest beginnings.
>
> -Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:17:03 +0000
> From: Gordan Bobic <gordan at bobich.net>
> To: linux clustering <linux-cluster at redhat.com>
> Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster] Cluster with shared storage on low budget
> Message-ID: <4D5AA6FF.8080608 at bobich.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
> Jeff Sturm wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: linux-cluster-bounces at redhat.com
> > [mailto:linux-cluster-bounces at redhat.com]
> >> On Behalf Of Gordan Bobic
> >> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 7:05 AM
> >>
> >> Volume resizing is, IMO, over-rated and unnecessary in most cases,
> > except where data
> >> growth is quite mind-boggling (in which case you won't be using MySQL
> > anyway).
> >
> > We actually resize volumes often.  Some of our storage volumes have 30
> > LUNs or more.  We have so many because we've virtualized most of our
> > infrastructure, and some of the hosts are single-purpose hosts.
> >
> > We don't want to allocate too more storage in advance, simply because
> > it's easier to grow than to shrink.  Stop the host, grow the volume,
> > e2fsck/resize2fs, start up and go.  Much nicer than increasing disk
> > capacity on physical hosts.
>
> Seems labour and downtime intensive to me. Maybe I'm just used to
> environments where that is an unacceptable tradeoff vs. ?40/TB for storage.
>
> Not to mention that it makes you totally reliant on SAN level
> redundancy, which I also generally deem unacceptable except on very high
> end SANs that have mirroring features.
>
> Additionally, considering you can self-build a multi-TB iSCSI SAN for a
> few hundred ?/$/? which will have volume growing ability (use sparse
> files for iSCSI volumes and write a byte to a greater offset), I cannot
> really see any justification whatsoever for using LVM with SAN based
> storage.
>
> > Haven't tried DRBD yet but I'm really tempted... it sounds like it has
> > come a long way since its modest beginnings.
>
> Not sure how far back you are talking about but I have been using it in
> production in both active-active and active-passive configurations since
> at least 2007 with no problems. From the usage point of view, the
> changes have been negligible.
>
> Gordan
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 11:24:26 -0500 (EST)
> From: Bob Peterson <rpeterso at redhat.com>
> To: linux clustering <linux-cluster at redhat.com>
> Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster] Cluster with shared storage on low budget
> Message-ID:
>        <
> 263367529.33108.1297787066881.JavaMail.root at zmail06.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> | We don't want to allocate too more storage in advance, simply because
> | it's easier to grow than to shrink. Stop the host, grow the volume,
> | e2fsck/resize2fs, start up and go. Much nicer than increasing disk
> | capacity on physical hosts.
>
> These might be good for ext3/4, but with gfs and gfs2 you can lvresize
> and gfs2_grow while the lv is mounted.  In fact, we expect it.
> Just make sure the vg has the clustered bit set (vgchange -cy) first.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bob Peterson
> Red Hat File Systems
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> --
> Linux-cluster mailing list
> Linux-cluster at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
>
> End of Linux-cluster Digest, Vol 82, Issue 19
> *********************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/linux-cluster/attachments/20110216/21fe7c6a/attachment.htm>