Re: [Rdo-list] Simplest Icehouse Implementation Architecture

Thanks as always, Lars. By "development environment", I mean several things: 1) Developers work on these hosts. We're a web shop, and one or more developers will spin up dev web servers on these hosts 2) Ideally, I'd also want to validate our production cloud environment so that when we deploy it in production, we have validated the configuration. For the time being, however, #2 is a nice-to-have and does not at all seem to fit in with the fairly aggressive goal of implementing a new RDO deployment in 1-3 days (way over that already as you might well imagine). So, basically, I want to migrate from the current set of physical hosts on which developers now work to a cloud environment which will host no more than 25 VMs. Since we have two fairly well-endowed hosts targeted for use as compute hosts, would it be realistic to use one as the controller, while still using it as a compute host? On a related note, what happens if I lose the controller box in this two-compute-hosts-one-as-controller-host scenario? I believe that I'm out of business until I can remedy that, and if I wanted to set up the two hosts as both compute hosts as well as putting some kind of HA in place so that control could pass from one to the other of these boxes, would that be possible? Recommended? Must the control host be separate in order to do (live) migrations? Is it a requirement that the control host be separate if I want to deploy 2 compute hosts? And, if I choose the two-host solution, how does the network host (through which my understanding is that all network access to the instances must pass) play into this? Eric On 5/29/14, 3:39 PM, Lars Kellogg-Stedman wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 03:31:09PM -0400, Eric Berg wrote: >> So, are either of the following architectures sufficient for a >> development >> environment? > Depending on your definition of "development environment", a *single* > host may be sufficient. It really depends on how many instances you > expect to support, of what size, and what sort of workloads you'll be > hosting. > > Having a seperate "control" node makes for nice logical separation of > roles, which I find helpful in diagnosing problems. > > Having more than one compute node lets you experiment with things like > instance migration, etc, which may be useful if you eventually plan to > move to a production configuration. >