Re: [hobbit] HA solutions

[Gary Baluha <gumby3203 (at) gmail.com>]

I haven't gotten down to tuning the setup, but out of the box, LinuxHA seems
to fail over in about that same 3-5 second time frame.  That's with the
heartbeat going through the primary LAN interface, and just going by what
crm_mon says (with a 5 second update interval).

Once I get DRBD up and running on the nodes, I'm going to do a bit more
exhaustive testing and see how quickly and smoothly I get can things to fail
over.  Maybe now that I've started this thread, it will give me an incentive
to spend some more time on this ;-)

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Clark, Sean <sean.clark (at) twcable.com> wrote:

>  I have it running with Conga/Ricci/lucci redhat-cluster and a 3510 shared
> disk array.
> [2 node with shared IP]
>
> I was thinking of switching it over to linux-HA though, because it takes
> 3-5 seconds to fail over, and this seems too slow for me
>
> how fast does linuxHA failover?
>
>
> -Sean
>
>
> P Go Green! Print this email only when necessary. Thank you for helping
> Time Warner Cable be environmentally responsible.
>
>
>
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* Gary Baluha [mailto:gumby3203 (at) gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:37 AM
> *To:* hobbit (at) hswn.dk
> *Subject:* [hobbit] HA solutions
>
> I know there was a thread on this a while back, and if I recall, there was
> mention that the 4.3.0 line would have features for HA.
>
> Anyway, I've been working on implementing a 2-node HA Xymon cluster using
> LinuxHA, and probably DRBD for shared disk (I have yet to implement DRBD,
> though).  The Apache and Xymon services fail over to the other node fairly
> nicely, and I have successfully testing that using a shared IP to the Xymon
> web page works.  It's still in the early stages of implementation and
> testing, but so far it appears hold hold promise.
>
> I'd be interesting in hearing about other HA solutions that have been
> implemented (if any).  I don't recall previous mention of LinuxHA, so if no
> one else has done it, I'll be glad to update the list with my progress.
>
> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner
> Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential,
> or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail
> is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which
> it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this
> E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
> distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents
> of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
> unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
> the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any
> copy of this E-mail and any printout.
>
>