[PVE-User] HA scalability and predictability

Alexandre DERUMIER aderumier at odiso.com
Mon Dec 10 07:39:59 CET 2018


>>I presume a "node1:2,node8:1" and "restricted 1" should do the trick here.

restricted is only used, if both both node1 && node8 are down, the vm don't go to another node.

But the weight indeed, should do the trick.

for example, n nodes with :2  , and spare(s) node(s) with :1

----- Mail original -----
De: "Christian Balzer" <chibi at gol.com>
À: "proxmoxve" <pve-user at pve.proxmox.com>
Envoyé: Lundi 10 Décembre 2018 04:45:27
Objet: [PVE-User] HA scalability and predictability

Hello, 

still investigating PVE as a large ganeti cluster replacement. 

Some years ago we did our owh HA VM cluster based on Pacemaker, libvirt 
(KVM) and DRBD. 
While this worked well it also showed the limitations in Pacemaker and LRM 
in particular. Things got pretty sluggish with 60VMs and a total of 120 
resources. 
This cluster will have about 800VMs, has anybody done this number of HA 
VMs with PVE and what's their experience? 

Secondly, it is an absolute requirement that a node failure will result in 
a predictable and restricted failover. 
I.e. the cluster will have a n+1 (or n+2) redundancy with at least one 
node being essentially a hot spare. 
Failovers should only go to the spare(s), never another compute node. 

I presume a "node1:2,node8:1" and "restricted 1" should do the trick here. 

Regards, 

Christian 
-- 
Christian Balzer Network/Systems Engineer 
chibi at gol.com Rakuten Communications 
_______________________________________________ 
pve-user mailing list 
pve-user at pve.proxmox.com 
https://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user 



More information about the pve-user mailing list