[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: linux-ha-dev
Subject: [Linux-ha-dev] "Hot Failover" status/plans
From: ben.carlyle () wrsa ! com ! au
Date: 2007-07-27 4:48:23
Message-ID: OFAC1AF299.B83410FF-ON4A257325.001A5A62-4A257325.001A9278 () wrsl ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
This is a multipart message in MIME format.
This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 001A92774A257325_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
G'day,
I'm currently reviewing technology in the high availability area for
applicability to replace an existing proprietary system. Linux HA looks to
have come a long way since I last reviewed it, which would have been
around 2005. This might just be an improvement in the documentation, as
opposed to code changes.
The brief of the existing software is to provide n-way redundancy for
applications/resources that need to be highly available, with hot
failover. The existing system takes a fairly simple approach. It requires
prior configuration of exactly where all resources will be running. It
runs all replicas all the time, and tells one replica to be the controller
while others are told not to be the controller.
I read in "The Evolution of the Linux-HA project"[1] that the community is
interested in hot failover. Is this still the case? I believe this is
still different to what you are calling "hot standby". Is that right?
Is there an established mechanism or approach to providing hot failover
using existing LinuxHA technology?
If not, what do the plans towards this goal look like? For example, is
there a clear idea as to how resources managed in this way are told about
decision of control?
I have a few other queries that may already be addressed in the
documentation:
Is it possible to set up some sort of "mega cluster" with Linux HA? By
this I mean that a resource is shared across multiple geographical
locations, each with a mini-cluster. Each mini-cluster would elect a
leader, which exchanges heartbeat messages with the leader of the other
cluster. Within each mini-cluster, heartbeats can be exchanged n-ways.
The general idea of this approach is that resources could be redundant
across geographical boundaries without saturating the WAN link with
redundant heartbeat communications.
Thanks in advance for any responses you can offer.
Benjamin.
[1] http://www.linux-ha.org/_cache/TechnicalPapers__HBevolution.pdf
--=_alternative 001A92774A257325_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">G'day,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I'm currently reviewing technology in
the high availability area for applicability to replace an existing proprietary
system. Linux HA looks to have come a long way since I last reviewed it,
which would have been around 2005. This might just be an improvement in
the documentation, as opposed to code changes.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The brief of the existing software is
to provide n-way redundancy for applications/resources that need to be
highly available, with hot failover. The existing system takes a fairly
simple approach. It requires prior configuration of exactly where all resources
will be running. It runs all replicas all the time, and tells one replica
to be the controller while others are told not to be the controller.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I read in "The Evolution of the
Linux-HA project"[1] that the community is interested in hot failover.
Is this still the case? I believe this is still different to what you are
calling "hot standby". Is that right?</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Is there an established mechanism or
approach to providing hot failover using existing LinuxHA technology?</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">If not, what do the plans towards this
goal look like? For example, is there a clear idea as to how resources
managed in this way are told about decision of control?</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I have a few other queries that may
already be addressed in the documentation:</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Is it possible to set up some sort of
"mega cluster" with Linux HA? By this I mean that a resource
is shared across multiple geographical locations, each with a mini-cluster.
Each mini-cluster would elect a leader, which exchanges heartbeat messages
with the leader of the other cluster. Within each mini-cluster, heartbeats
can be exchanged n-ways.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The general idea of this approach is
that resources could be redundant across geographical boundaries without
saturating the WAN link with redundant heartbeat communications.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Thanks in advance for any responses
you can offer.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Benjamin.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">[1] \
http://www.linux-ha.org/_cache/TechnicalPapers__HBevolution.pdf</font>
--=_alternative 001A92774A257325_=--
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: Linux-HA-Dev@lists.linux-ha.org
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic