[SAC] OSGeo Ganeti Cluster
ramereth at osuosl.org
Fri Jan 5 09:45:32 PST 2018
On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Alex Mandel <tech_dev at wildintellect.com>
> I would have never suggested libvrt if I didn't know the compatibility.
> Both are managers on top of KVM, with the disks of the vms being lvm
> volumes. Moving a vm is a matter of copying the lvm volume and declaring
> a config to use it as it's disk.
This is true and wouldn't be that difficult to do.
> The feature we'd be losing is DRBD, which is a multi server hotcopy
> failover system, which we don't really use because of performance issues
> with load on some our machines. Ganeti also isn't really designed for
> less than 3 servers, and kind of expects those servers to all be roughly
> the same.
While I agree it works better with at least 3 servers, clusters running
only two is OK still. I don't recall what issues you had in the past with
DRBD but it hasn't been that much of problem lately on our clusters.
> You are correct if we moved off ganeti we'd remove OSUOSL from anything
> but the hardware management. This came up as SAC has never really had
> good access to the hosts osgeo3 and osgeo4, and OSUOSL doesn't always
> have time to troubleshoot some of our unusual issues.
That's OK with us, we can do whatever makes the most sense for you and
your project. At the time, Ganeti was the best option, but now there are a
few other options available. We have been using OpenStack internally for
several years and are almost ready to open up a larger cluster for FOSS
projects. It's a bit more complicated to maintain, but it offers a lot more
flexibility in how you manage and access the VMs using a standard public
What are your project's needs?
> On 12/28/2017 10:15 AM, Regina Obe wrote:
> > Lance,
> > I'm afraid we are further behind on new server than I thought. Seems
> more questions came out of the meeting than answers.
> > Any thoughts you have to add would be greatly appreciated.
> > One of the surprising outcomes for me was I thought sticking with Ganeti
> was done deal. Seems it is not and libvrt is under consideration
> > You have any thoughts between Ganeti and Libvrt, what we would be losing
> if we switch to Libvrt. Are the image formats even compatible? I suspect
> they are not but haven't done the research. I'm more concerned with OSUSL
> being able to support us if we decide to go with libvrt and rebuilding our
> currently in use VMs on libvrt.
> > Minutes from last meeting here: https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/
> > (transcript starts around 20:15 – 22:01ish http://irclogs.geoapt.com/
> osgeo-sac/%23osgeo-sac.2017-12-21.log )
> > To summarize OSU specific outcomes
> > 1) We still need to pick out specs on new server. Alex is going to
> propose some options on the mailing list as I recall from here -
> https://www.siliconmechanics.com/ to fit in a $5000 ish budget.
> > 2) We are debating with sticking with Ganeti or moving to something
> easier for us to manage like libvrt. I'm concerned with having just one
> libvrt and it doesn't solve the problem we have of just having 1 Ganeti
> cluster we can trust so would just assume stick with Ganeti, but I'm less
> knowledgeable on the subject of the difference between the 2. So I guess
> this means a hold-off for you on your plans unless you have any options we
> missed. :(
> > 3) On the existing Ganeti clusters we have to inventory what is
> easy to move off and what we actually are still using cause on quick
> finding, I think a lot of things on those servers are not in use. I think
> Martin was in middle of migrating stuff off because all those VMs are old
> Debian 5 or 6 and have to be rebuilt anyway, but I'm not confident we'll
> have enough bandwidth in next month or two to move everything off.
> > Thanks,
> > Regina
Oregon State University | Open Source Lab
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Sac