On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 11:16 -0700, Steven Dake wrote:
On 07/27/2011 08:05 AM, Jason Guiditta wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 10:43 -0400, Hugh Brock wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:26:08AM -0400, Jason Guiditta wrote:
>>> Hello list (and Steve), I have been tasked with looking into the
>>> following nebulous feature item for consideration of being included in
>>>
<snip>
>
Jason,
Our current plans around HA are focused on providing high levels of
service availability for resources/assemblies/deployables. A good
understanding of HA theory as well as our plans is explained here:
http://www.redhat.com/summit/2011/presentations/summit/whats_new/thursday...
Since this task is on HA of the infrastructure itself (rather then the
end user applications), I'd recommend looking into refining this task to
the following:
* Contain infrastructure in a deployable *
Rather then has been previously suggested, this is not a circular
dependency issue or infinite regression issue, but rather a
bootstrapping task, much like creating a toolchain.
Why go to the trouble? We get automatic high availability (from
www.pacemaker-cloud.org), the ability to scale out, and an easy
configuration model for our users.
If you like, my team will take on this task during the next iteration.
Regards
-steve
Steve, that would be excellent, thanks - though I am quite sure we'll
need to do some work on our side too. This level of HA you refer to is
more what I was initially thinking was meant, I just want to be careful
we don't over-promise on this (especially since we now seem to have 2
level of HA topic floating about). I'll read through your plan
today/tomorrow, so I have a better idea what is going on from your side.
Meanwhile, if there are things we can do on the aeolus/infra or
conductor side to make this smoother/easier, please let us know so we
can plan accordingly. Thanks,
-j