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

[Theofanis Katsiaounis]

Hi all,
Indeed Kilo could solve the network issues since networking is HA 
capable too.
Containers/Swift can be a problem especially since you have to leave 
space to create the storage rings etc.

Regards,
Fanis

On 13/11/2015 12:50 μμ, Cristian Cristelotti wrote:
> Hi Sean,
>
> Our experience with Grizzly (HA) was very bad. IceHouse (HA) was better but not stable . Now we are with JUNO on single-node and we haven't faced any problem .
> We are working on the migration to KILO (HA + murano + ceilometer ).
>
> KILO seems to have solved the problems mentioned by Fanis.
> If you'll not deploy the node with HA you'll not have containers functionality or better you have to install swift manually after fuel deployment.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Cristian
>
> ----- Messaggio originale -----
> Da: "Sean Murphy" <murp at zhaw.ch>
> A: "Theofanis Katsiaounis" <th_katsiaounis at neuropublic.gr>
> Cc: fiware-lab-federation-nodes at lists.fiware.org
> Inviato: Venerdì, 13 novembre 2015 11:40:13
> Oggetto: Re: [Fiware-lab-federation-nodes] [CESNET #134122] Re: experiences with HA
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
> So the feedback so far is the following:
> - Riwal says that running Juno/HA is not so problematic, but has not had a specific failure
> situation where HA could really be tested
> - Fernando notes that Juno/HA exhibited stability problems for larger numbers of users and
> decided against it
> - Fanis notes that Icehouse/HA was quite problematic in multiple respects
>
>
> >From our pov, this is not painting a v positive picture regarding HA and despite
> our inclination to experiment with newer technologies we would prob opt not to
> use HA.
>
>
> Does anyone in the project have Kilo/HA experience?
>
>
> BR,
> Seán.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Theofanis Katsiaounis < th_katsiaounis at neuropublic.gr > wrote:
>
>
>
> 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 > 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 ] De la part de Sean Murphy
> Envoyé : jeudi 12 novembre 2015 16:33
> À : 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151113/60e1c44b/attachment.html>