Re: [Xen-users] Which distro to use for Dom0
On 01/12/2011 12:12 PM, Donny Brooks wrote:
> On 1/12/2011 11:06 AM, Donny Brooks wrote:
>> On 1/12/2011 10:59 AM, Digimer wrote:
>>> On 01/12/2011 11:55 AM, Donny Brooks wrote:
>>>> I am not worried about the xen version really. I have 4.0 on centos
>>>> currently from the third party repo. I mainly need whatever supports
>>>> best live/auto migration. Basically if I have a server fail I need
>>>> whatever was running on it to switch to the backup server
>>>> Food for thought: What would be the difference in the above support
>>>> between Ubuntu/Debian and Fedora 14?
>>> Automatic VM migration in a failure would best be achieved with a 2-node
>>> cluster. Fedora 14 would be best there, as I believe most of the
>>> developers of Pacemaker and RHCS use Fedora/RHEL. At the least, it's
>>> pretty RPM-centric, then gets ported to .deb's.
>>> That in and of itself is not always the best argument though. It was
>>> enough to make me switch from Debian/Ubuntu to RHEL (CentOS)/Fedora
>> Thanks for the input. Currently we do not have any form of auto
>> failover so that is a must moving forward. So is pacemaker the best
>> way to provide auto failover with xen 4.0?
>> Xen-users mailing list
> Also, where would XCP come into play with this? Is it something I should
I don't use XCP, so I can't comment on that.
As for clustering; Pacemaker will be the main clustered resource manager
going forward (rgmanager from RHCS is now being migrated away). I've
just started this move myself, but I do think that there are well tested
Xen OCF scripts for managing Xen VMs.
The setup you will want to look at is:
- RHEL 6 (Fedora 14/CentOS 6)
- Corosync + Pacemaker (cluster core + resource manager)
- Fencing (aka Stonith) device (IPMI, PDU, etc)
- DRBD if you don't have/want a SAN
- qdisk for proper quorum support
Node Assassin: http://nodeassassin.org
Xen-users mailing list