[Gluster-users] about HA infrastructure for hypervisors

[Gerald Brandt]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nicolas Sebrecht" <nsebrecht at piing.fr>
> To: "gluster-users" <gluster-users at gluster.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 3:06:30 AM
> Subject: [Gluster-users] about HA infrastructure for hypervisors
> 
> Hi,
> 
> We are going to try glusterfs for our new HA servers.
> 
> To get full HA, I'm thinking of building it this way:
> 
>   +----------------+                  +----------------+
>   |                |                  |                |
>   | KVM hypervisor |-----+    +-------| KVM hypervisor |
>   |                |     |    |       |                |
>   +----------------+     |    |       +----------------+
>                          |    |
>                         +------+
>                         |switch|
>                         +------+
>                          |    |
>   +---------------+      |    |        +---------------+
>   |               |      |    |        |               |
>   | Glusterfs 3.3 |------+    +--------| Glusterfs 3.3 |
>   |   server A    |                    |   server B    |
>   |               |                    |               |
>   +---------------+                    +---------------+
> 
> 
> The idea is to have HA if either one KVM hypervisor or one Glusterfs
> server stop working (failure, maintenance, etc).
> 
> Some points:
> - We don't care much about duplicating the network (we're going to
> have
>   spare materials only).
> - Glusterfs servers will use gluster replication to get HA.
> - Each Glusterfs server will have SSD disks in a RAID (1 or 10, I
> guess).
> - Most of the time, both KVM hypervisor will have VM running.
> 
> 1. Is this a correct/typicall infrastructure?
> 
> 2. We still didn't decide what physical network to choose between FC,
> FCoE
> and Infiniband. What would you suggest for both performance and easy
> configuration?
> 
> Is it possible to use FC or FCoE for a HA Glusterfs cluster? If so,
> how
> to configure Glusterfs nodes?
> 
> 3. Would it be better to split the Glusterfs namespace into two
> gluster
> volumes (one for each hypervisor), each running on a Glusterfs server
> (for the normal case where all servers are running)?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --
> Nicolas Sebrecht

Hi,

If your switch breaks, you are done.  Put each Gluster server on it's own switch.

>   +----------------+                  +----------------+
>   |                |                  |                |
>   | KVM hypervisor |---+      +-------| KVM hypervisor |
>   |                |   |      |       |                |
>   +----------------+   |      |       +----------------+
>                        |      |
>                  +------+  +------+
>                  |switch|  |switch|
>                  +------+  +------+
>                      | |      |  |
>   +---------------+  | |      |  |     +---------------+
>   |               |  | |      |  +-----|               |
>   | Glusterfs 3.3 |--+ +------)--------| Glusterfs 3.3 |
>   |   server A    |           |        |   server B    |
>   |               |-----------+        |               |
>   +---------------+                    +---------------+