November 18, 2009
Andrew, whom I helped convince to switch to DocBook for writing Pacemaker documentation, pointed me to Publican, a DocBook publishing framework developed by tech writers at Red Hat.
Publican packages have been available in Debian squeeze for a while, but as of today are not included in Ubuntu. Thus, I built packages for karmic, which you may fetch by adding the following line to your /etc/apt/sources.list file:
deb http://people.linbit.com/~florian/ubuntu/publican karmic main
Then fetch my GnuPG key so you can verify the Release file’s integrity:
apt-key adv --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 7349B897BC759CF1
Now you can install with
aptitude update
aptitude install publican
… and then hack away.
Ubuntu folks (Andres, that means you!), can we have this in the upstream Ubuntu distros please?
2 Comments |
Documentation, Ubuntu |
Permalink
Posted by Florian Haas
November 16, 2009
Here is an announcement we made earlier today on the linux-ha and linux-ha-dev mailing lists.
This is to announce that LINBIT, with the kind permission from the Linux-HA project board, will act as the “steward” of the Heartbeat cluster messaging layer code base, from this point forward. This is a summary of our motivation and plans related to that role.
Read the rest of this entry »
1 Comment |
Heartbeat, Non-technical, Pacemaker |
Permalink
Posted by Florian Haas
September 17, 2009
A completely non-technical post for a change.
Last weekend, seven employees of LINBIT’s European division participated in the World Games of Mountain Biking in Saalbach-Hinterglemm, Austria. We took part as Marathon race participants and co-sponsors of Biking for Butterfly Children, a charity dedicated to the fight against epidermolysis bullosa (EB).
Currently, no cure for any of the over 30 subtypes of EB exists — dermatologists and care givers can, however, greatly improve patients’
quality of life. Still, EB can be an excruciatingly painful, disfiguring, and debilitating disease that affects one in 20,000 live births and as such, makes the condition an orphan disease. The health care industry has little incentive to research the condition (as there is little money to be made off of it), and those who dedicate their careers to EB patient care and research rely on charitable donations for funding. Biking for Butterfly Children acts as a reliable fund raiser rounding up much-needed donations in the course of amateur cycling events (such as the World Games).
During this year’s World Games, B4BC raised a total of about 7,000 euros in donations — a respectable sum for an all-amateur event, but a lot more money is needed to improve the quality of life of EB patients, and potentially discover a cure to the disease. If you consider joining the fight against EB, please contact your local DebRA chapter.
Leave a Comment » |
Non-technical |
Permalink
Posted by Florian Haas
September 16, 2009
Every once in a while, people ask us something along the lines of “why do I need DRBD? Can’t I accomplish what it does by other means?” You mean build high availability clusters with block-level synchronous replication? Well, sure you can. But all of the available alternatives have serious drawbacks.
- Use a SAN. Well, SANs are great in terms of management, even though they’re sometimes prohibitively expensive. But your regular SAN box does not offer physically distributed redundancy at the data level. In order words, if your SAN box goes down, all your beautiful high availability infrastructure turns to shreds. And even if you naïvely believe (and you shouldn’t) that a storage box can never crash, just think about air conditioning going down in just that part of your data center where your storage shelf is at. Repair time of several hours means down time of several hours, even though your servers in a different cabinet may be up and running. You’re dealing with a single point of failure. Not high availability in my book.
- Use a SAN with native replication. This means using two separate storage boxes with synchronous block-level replication between them. This eliminates the above-mentioned SPOF and is available from just about any SAN vendor (using proprietary implementations under various product names). The downside is that it costs you serious bucks, and I am not referring to just the additional piece of hardware. Those firmware licenses can hit six figures. Plus, switchover times (changing the direction of replication) can be extremely long, up to 4 minutes in some cases. And there is little to no support for replication management from open source cluster management software.
- Use a SAN with host-based mirroring. This means that you have two separate SAN boxes, hosts import LUNs from both, and mirror those pairs using software RAID (such as md). Eliminates the SPOF and saves you dollars on firmware licensing. Downsides: you still need a SAN (and the associated infrastructure — fibre channel, for example, isn’t exactly cheap), and as such your clusters are still not shared-nothing. And the integration with open source cluster management is also lacking.
- Use host-based mirroring between a local device, and a network block device. In this case, you have one disk that is local, and another that is exported from a remote host using NBD or iSCSI. Those two disks are then mirrored with software RAID. Now this one is really terrible in terms of management. Role reversal always requires some custom glue, no support from cluster manages is available whatsoever, and split brain detection is poor or non existant. So if you really want to go down that alley then do — but please don’t call it a high availability cluster.
Compare this to DRBD: no need for a SAN, so you can use it to operate a fully shared-nothing cluster. No firmware licensing cost. No need for expensive infrastructure as everything can replicate over regular IP networks. Role switch in a matter of seconds. Tight integration with both Pacemaker and Red Hat Cluster Suite. Excellent split brain detection to make sure you don’t wreck your data accidentally. So if you are considering alternatives then that’s perfectly fine, but our soaring usage numbers are there for a reason.
9 Comments |
Pacemaker, Technical |
Permalink
Posted by Florian Haas