Discussion in 'Feature Requests' started by Kynao, Jan 9, 2014.
Is clustering take into consideration ?
ISPConfig supports clusetring for years now, you find the installation instructons for clusters on the ispconfig.org documentation page.
I'm not sure we're talking of the same things.
By clustering, i mean avoiding single point of failure (so a single point of bottleneck) with HA added values in terms of availability and scalability by supporting multi servers and not one master and one slave server.
I didn't see any cluster related subject on the demo but :
- Apparently, the ISPConfig 3 manual has a section on "Installing A Web, Email And MySQL Database Cluster On Debian 6.0 With ISPConfig 3"
- in the meantime, we have a Howtoforge available "Installing A Web, Email And MySQL Database Cluster (Mirror) On Debian 5.0 With ISPConfig 3" but i don't know if the limitation in the MySQL cluster setup (locking issues) has been resolved in the updated official guide or even if Mysql has been replaced by Mariadb as we often see in various projects these days.
I also didn't see something related to load balancing except this guide "Setting Up A High-Availability Load Balancer (With Failover and Session Support) With HAProxy/Heartbeat On Debian Etch" but i would suggest something more straightforward done by ISPConfig itself.
LVS and HAProxy comes to mind even more. I would suggest a frontend to support such a solution. A good example and live demo of a front end for HA-Proxy => Link. A simplier load balancer management demo but yet useful => link.
The main purpose of the suggestion is ISPConfig brings a whole solution through a graphic installation / maintenance wizard in order several servers act as one.
So we would have something like one ISPConfig machine acting as the Cluster Manager (Master), and the other machines are set as Nodes (Slaves).
If any node in the cluster goes down, customers won’t notice anything except for a slight drop in response time, depending on our traffic volume. The cluster manager would display the servers up and down for whatever the reason.
The benefit here would be to rely on the added values of a control panel instead of doing everything with configuration lines (which is out of the control panel scope as, by definition, configuration lines represent the responsability work of a user).
We are talking about the same thing, here is the guide (copied from ispconfig documentation page):
Btw. thats just an example setup, ispconfig is very flexible in this regard and there are many ways to setup a cluster with ispconfig, e.g. you can all kinds of different shared filesystems and put any kind of loadbalncer in fron of the setup, ranging from software like haproxy to hardware loadbalancer appliences.
Yes, thanks for the link.
But the purpose would be to bring an easier life to users for installing and managing some services, here clustering.
The suggestion is not about ispconfig to be compliant with what the user do but to do the same things instead of the user and make the maintenance easier while in production, so that control added values would be proved instead of pushing user skills/capabilities.
While it's a good thing ispconfig to be very flexible, maybe an additional approach could be added : a shared filesystem (glusterfs often took in example is very fine) and a loadbalancer (ha-proxy is excellent) could be choosed, by vote if necessary so that it would please most of the community, for a finger in the nooze configuration and maintenance.
Seems as if you have not setup a ispconfig cluster yet. Adding a website on a single server is exactly the same effort then adding a website in a cluster, no additional steps are required (cick on new website, enter the domain name, click on save). ispconfig mirrors the setup on the other cluster node automatically. Glusterfs is supported as well and there is also a install guide that covers this. The only thing thats not supported yet is a automatic setup of haproxy.
Thanks you Till.
Yes, the automatic setup of haproxy is a wish.
It's about the same work InterWorx did in their product in which all is packaged, relying on LVS instead of haproxy.
One part of the demo in video (in running mode) http://player.vimeo.com/video/13268879?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0&color=ff9933
and the way their configure it http://docs.interworx.com/interworx/clustering/index-The-Load-Balancer.php#toc-Chapter-5
Thanks for the links, I will check it out and add a feature request for haproxy in the bugtracker.
Separate names with a comma.