[Fiware-lab-federation-nodes] [CESNET #134122] Re: experiences with HA

[Theofanis Katsiaounis]

Hi all,
we had HA on Icehouse and it was a mess. Especially with the 
Networking/Neutron part. Namespaces were not transfered between nodes so 
if one went down vm's lost networking. Reboots were a lottery indeed, 
sometimes they worked sometimes they did not. And when we lost power 
once i had to rebuild the node.
Of course the FIWARE lab handbook asks for an HA solution but i see in 
the case of Spain this has already been violated ;).
My two cents is that the guys from Spain made the right choice. I do not 
think HA in openstack is ready for production especially with a big 
number of users.

Regards,
Fanis

On 13/11/2015 11:33 πμ, Riwal KERHERVE wrote:
>
> Sean,
>
> In Grizzly, anytime we needed to restart processes handled by CRM, it 
> was a lottery. Sometimes, everything went fine and sometimes the 
> processes keep on rebooting and it take us hours to put back things in 
> order.
>
> In Juno, we never experienced this kind of behavior. When we needed to 
> restart processes trough CRM, all always went fine.
>
> To answer to your question:
>
> The only time, we played with HA, it was to take into account some 
> modification in our configuration files. I do not recall exercising HA 
> capabilities, like the need of putting one node down and switching all 
> processes to the other node.
>
> BR
>
> Riwal
>
> *De :*sean at gopaddy.ch [mailto:sean at gopaddy.ch] *De la part de* Sean Murphy
> *Envoyé :* jeudi 12 novembre 2015 17:01
> *À :* Riwal KERHERVE
> *Cc :* fiware-lab-federation-nodes at lists.fiware.org
> *Objet :* Re: [CESNET #134122] Re: [Fiware-lab-federation-nodes] 
> experiences with HA
>
> Hi Riwal,
>
> Good feedback - thanks for that.
>
> As a matter of interest, have you ever needed to exercise any of the HA
>
> capabilities or have you tested it in anger?
>
> BR,
>
> Seán.
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Riwal KERHERVE via RT 
> <xifi-support at rt.cesnet.cz <mailto:xifi-support at rt.cesnet.cz>> wrote:
>
> Sean,
>
> I do not have experience with Kilo in HA, but our node is in Juno and 
> in HA. We installed it with fuel 6.0 (2 controllers and 1 Arbitrator). 
> We never have any trouble until now: very stable, nothing to be with 
> HA in grizzly.
>
> BR
> Riwal
>
> De : fiware-lab-federation-nodes-bounces at lists.fiware.org 
> <mailto:fiware-lab-federation-nodes-bounces at lists.fiware.org> 
> [mailto:fiware-lab-federation-nodes-bounces at lists.fiware.org 
> <mailto:fiware-lab-federation-nodes-bounces at lists.fiware.org>] De la 
> part de Sean Murphy
> Envoyé : jeudi 12 novembre 2015 16:33
> À : fiware-lab-federation-nodes at lists.fiware.org 
> <mailto:fiware-lab-federation-nodes at lists.fiware.org>
> Objet : [Fiware-lab-federation-nodes] experiences with HA
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> We're looking at our upgrade strategy and we're curious to
> hear any experience with Kilo HA both from the deployment
> perspective as well as the operations perspective.
>
> From xifi, I remember Fanis reporting a split-brain scenario
> with HA and in the end he opted not to go with a HA solution;
> this gives me pause for thought when considering this
> deployment solution, even though it seems to be the
> preferred solution.
>
> Generally, we would be well disposed to a HA deployment
> as we would like to learn about it, but we do not want to
> end up deploying a technology that is too far from production
> readiness.
>
> Does anyone have any experience that they can share on this
> point?
>
> BR,
> Seán.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fiware-lab-federation-nodes mailing list
> Fiware-lab-federation-nodes at lists.fiware.org
> https://lists.fiware.org/listinfo/fiware-lab-federation-nodes



Αποποίηση ευθυνών / Disclaimer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-lab-federation-nodes/attachments/20151113/d1d3ca0d/attachment.html>