[Rdo-list] Simplest Icehouse Implementation Architecture

[Eric Berg]

Thoughts, anyone?

I'm moving forward with the following:

packstack  --install-hosts=192.168.0.37,192.168.0.39

and will add another compute host in the future.  Still thinking about 
what the network should look like, but I'm probably overthinking it for 
a change.

On 5/29/14, 4:04 PM, Eric Berg wrote:
> 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.
>>
>

-- 
Eric Berg
Sr. Software Engineer
Rubenstein Technology Group
55 Broad Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10004-2501

(212) 518-6400
(212) 518-6467 fax
eberg at rubensteintech.com
www.rubensteintech.com