[Pacemaker] Web farm question

[Arnold Krille]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 09:49:00 -0500 Robert Parsons
<rparsons at tappublishing.com> wrote:
> 
> We are building a new web farm to replace our 7 year old system. The
> old system used ipvs/ldirectord/heartbeat to implement redundant load 
> balancers. All web server nodes were physical boxes.
> 
> The proposed new system will utilize approximately 24 virtual
> machines as web servers. Load balancing and redundancy will be done
> via ClusterIP rather than an explicit load balancer. We're looking at
> potentially 50 services running on 24 nodes. Pacemaker seemed like it
> would accommodate such a setup, however, from my research I am
> worried that perhaps it will not scale up to such a level.
> 
> Does anyone have any experience or feedback on this proposed approach
> to a web farm? Should I consider another approach?

I can't speak for webfarms (yet), but we have 66 services, mostly
drbd-devices and virtual machines on a 2+1 node cluster running
successfully. Some of the default-intervals where to short so we
increased them to make pacemaker less demanding and now its running
smoothly.
It helps that the vms total used memory is less then what both
active nodes have. So the normal distributed usage leaves lots of
memory to be used as disk-cache on the hosts.

Have fun,

Arnold
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/pacemaker/attachments/20130424/bf0a9a06/attachment-0003.sig>