BLU Discuss list archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Discuss] Redundant array of inexpensive servers: clustering?
- Subject: [Discuss] Redundant array of inexpensive servers: clustering?
- From: invalid at pizzashack.org (Derek Martin)
- Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 13:33:44 -0500
- In-reply-to: <533AE780.3080409@gmail.com>
- References: <59f17e1985643ee2db54537d32f525c6.squirrel@webmail.ci.net> <533A9744.70603@gmail.com> <533AE780.3080409@gmail.com>
On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 12:21:20PM -0400, Richard Pieri wrote: > Like I wrote yesterday, the hard part is clustering applications. It really depends, but mostly it isn't. One of my earliest gigs was managing just such an environment, which mostly included a few custom applications which were not designed to be clustered. With the right hardware, it's fairly trivial. But the right hardware is expensive. Most services can be divided into the code that runs it, the hardware that the code runs on, the data that the service relies on/produces, and the storage on which that data lives. So, you: - provide redundant hardware, each running your software (usually cheap) - provide redundant, replicating data storage (expensive: think redundant replicating disk array, such as the expensive solutions EMC provides for this purpose) - connect your storage to all of the nodes in your cluster In many cases, the rest of the problem takes care of itself. The main remaining problem is loss of transactions which were in progress when your hardware failed. Some applications, like databases and those built upon databases, already have a means of dealing with that problem. Some applications can simply ignore transactions that failed in progress (like e-mail transmission, DNS requests, etc.). The rest, that's where the interesting bits lie... but that's a relatively small piece of the puzzle. The only hard part is paying for the redundant storage. My now- defunct former employer was developing a (relatively) cheap solution that replaced the expensive EMC array with cheaper redundant RAID arrays, but that product was subsumed by Red Hat. I can't comment on how good it is. -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
- Follow-Ups:
- [Discuss] HA storage
- From: tmetro+blu at gmail.com (Tom Metro)
- [Discuss] Redundant array of inexpensive servers: clustering?
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Richard Pieri)
- [Discuss] HA storage
- References:
- [Discuss] Redundant array of inexpensive servers: clustering?
- From: richb at pioneer.ci.net (Rich Braun)
- [Discuss] Redundant array of inexpensive servers: clustering?
- From: tmetro+blu at gmail.com (Tom Metro)
- [Discuss] Redundant array of inexpensive servers: clustering?
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Richard Pieri)
- [Discuss] Redundant array of inexpensive servers: clustering?
- Prev by Date: [Discuss] Redundant array of inexpensive servers: clustering?
- Next by Date: [Discuss] Redundant array of inexpensive servers: clustering?
- Previous by thread: [Discuss] Redundant array of inexpensive servers: clustering?
- Next by thread: [Discuss] Redundant array of inexpensive servers: clustering?
- Index(es):