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

[Giuseppe Cossu]

Hi all,
I agree that with the other comments that in OpenStack Grizzly Neutron HA
was unstable.
I want to add that starting from Juno have been introduced several
improvements in Neutron. Now there is also the possibility to configure the
HA using VRRP or DVR. Look at this link for more information:
https://kimizhang.wordpress.com/2014/11/25/building-redundant-and-distributed-l3-network-in-juno/

Regards,
Giuseppe

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Theofanis Katsiaounis <
th_katsiaounis at neuropublic.gr> wrote:

> 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@
> 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@
> 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@
> 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* <http://www.neuropublic.gr/el/disclaimer>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fiware-lab-federation-nodes mailing list
> Fiware-lab-federation-nodes at lists.fiware.org
> https://lists.fiware.org/listinfo/fiware-lab-federation-nodes
>
>


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------
Giuseppe Cossu
CREATE-NET
Smart Infrastructures
Research Engineer
Via alla Cascata 56/D - 38123 Povo Trento (Italy)
e-mail: giuseppe.cossu at create-net.org
Tel: (+39) 0461312428
www.create-net.org
--------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-lab-federation-nodes/attachments/20151113/7528425e/attachment.html>