Fri, 15 Apr 2011 08:36:38 -0700 (PDT) --- On Fri, 4/15/11, Jon Bendtsen <jbendtsen@laerdal.dk> wrote: > On 15/04/2011, at 01.01, Martin Fick wrote: > > Think load balancing. Say 10 vservers, split > them > > so that 5 run on each host normally. If either > host > > goes down, the other one picks up the slack. > > Everything runs slower, but at least it still runs. > > I think about the same considerations at the moment, > planning a new setup. > > Why not make 2 DRBD shares, A and B, put half of the > vserver guests on the A storage, unify, them, and then put > the other half on the B share. All the vserver guests on the > A DRBD share runs on the A-host, and like wise with the B > host. In daily usage you have no open files from the B share > on the A host, so all the memory would be unified. In case > of a split brain you can keep the guests running, and once > you get connection again easily resync the DRBD. > > In case of 1 vserver host failing then you can just start > all the vserver guests in DRBD share A on the vserver host > B. Yes that will not unify both groups of hosts, but that > should only be until you get the A host up again. > > So, what do you think? Sure, I think it would work. But it is less than ideal, and for me, it requires too much of a commitment to a "hack" setup, or half way solution, which is too inflexible. I prefer to incur the memory penalty. It really is much easier to manage all the servers independently, or as one. Making an arbitrary split is more complicated. -Martin