<div dir="ltr">I need 2 clusters to be running independently of each other on same node.<div><br></div><div>-Nikhil</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Ulrich Windl <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de" target="_blank">Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">>>> Nikhil Utane <<a href="mailto:nikhil.subscribed@gmail.com">nikhil.subscribed@gmail.com</a>> schrieb am 22.03.2017 um 11:23 in<br>
Nachricht<br>
<<a href="mailto:CAGNWmJWq1bBS-mZZuw3LosV3e%2BFF-L7KyzBEVnZhd7jRn-BnGw@mail.gmail.com">CAGNWmJWq1bBS-mZZuw3LosV3e+<wbr>FF-L7KyzBEVnZhd7jRn-BnGw@mail.<wbr>gmail.com</a>>:<br>
<span class="">> Hi Ulrich,<br>
><br>
> It's not an option unfortunately.<br>
> Our product runs on a specialized hardware and provides both the services<br>
> (A & B) that I am referring to. Hence I cannot have service A running on<br>
> some nodes as cluster A and service B running on other nodes as cluster B.<br>
> The two services HAVE to run on same node. The catch being service A and<br>
> service B have to be independent of each other.<br>
><br>
> Hence looking at Container option since we are using that for some other<br>
> product (but not for Pacemaker/Corosync).<br>
<br>
</span>But why do you need two pacemakers then?<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
><br>
> -Regards<br>
> Nikhil<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Ulrich Windl <<br>
> <a href="mailto:Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de">Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-<wbr>regensburg.de</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> >>> Nikhil Utane <<a href="mailto:nikhil.subscribed@gmail.com">nikhil.subscribed@gmail.com</a>> schrieb am 22.03.2017 um<br>
>> 07:48 in<br>
>> Nachricht<br>
>> <CAGNWmJV05-YG+f9VNG0Deu-<wbr>2xo7Lp+kRQPOn9sWYy7Jz=<a href="mailto:0gNag@mail.gmail.com">0gNag@<wbr>mail.gmail.com</a>>:<br>
>> > Hi All,<br>
>> ><br>
>> > First of all, let me thank everyone here for providing excellent support<br>
>> > from the time I started evaluating this tool about a year ago. It has<br>
>> > helped me to make a timely and good quality release of our Redundancy<br>
>> > solution using Pacemaker & Corosync. (Three cheers :))<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Now for our next release we have a slightly different ask.<br>
>> > We want to provide Redundancy to two different types of services (we can<br>
>> > call them Service A and Service B) such that all cluster communication<br>
>> for<br>
>> > Service A happens on one network/interface (say VLAN A) and for service B<br>
>> > happens on a different network/interface (say VLAN B). Moreover we do not<br>
>> > want the details of Service A (resource attributes etc) to be seen by<br>
>> > Service B and vice-versa.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > So essentially we want to be able to run two independent clusters. From<br>
>> > what I gathered, we cannot run multiple instances of Pacemaker and<br>
>> Corosync<br>
>> > on same node. I was thinking if we can use Containers and run two<br>
>> isolated<br>
>><br>
>> You conclude from two services that should not see each other that you<br>
>> need to instances of pacemaker on one node. Why?<br>
>> If you want true separation, drop the VLANs, make real networks and two<br>
>> independent clusters.<br>
>> Even if two pacemeaker on one node would work, you habe the problem of<br>
>> fencing, where at least one pacemaker instance will always be surprised<br>
>> badly if fencing takes place. I cannot imaging you want that!<br>
>><br>
>> > instances of Pacemaker + Corosync on same node.<br>
>> > As per <a href="https://github.com/davidvossel/pacemaker_docker" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/<wbr>davidvossel/pacemaker_docker</a> it looks do-able.<br>
>> > I wanted to get an opinion on this forum before I can commit that it can<br>
>> be<br>
>> > done.<br>
>><br>
>> Why are you designing it more complicated as necessary?<br>
>><br>
>> ><br>
>> > Please share your views if you have already done this and if there are<br>
>> any<br>
>> > known challenges that I should be familiar with.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > -Thanks<br>
>> > Nikhil<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
>> Users mailing list: <a href="mailto:Users@clusterlabs.org">Users@clusterlabs.org</a><br>
>> <a href="http://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.clusterlabs.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/users</a><br>
>><br>
>> Project Home: <a href="http://www.clusterlabs.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.clusterlabs.org</a><br>
>> Getting started: <a href="http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.clusterlabs.org/<wbr>doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf</a><br>
>> Bugs: <a href="http://bugs.clusterlabs.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://bugs.clusterlabs.org</a><br>
>><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Users mailing list: <a href="mailto:Users@clusterlabs.org">Users@clusterlabs.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.clusterlabs.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/users</a><br>
<br>
Project Home: <a href="http://www.clusterlabs.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.clusterlabs.org</a><br>
Getting started: <a href="http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.clusterlabs.org/<wbr>doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf</a><br>
Bugs: <a href="http://bugs.clusterlabs.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://bugs.clusterlabs.org</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>