[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: autoscaling



On Wed, 9 Jan 2013, Igor Laskovy wrote:

>
> Hi Mike, Diego, all!
>
> Mike, could you please clarify about development towards to  high availability of HAproxy gear?
>

We've been discussing this quite a bit and it will likely be a
multi-haproxy deployment behind some balancer.  Now, how we do that, where
the different parts live, etc is all still up for discussion.

> And when it's will be releases for enterprise edition?
>

I'm not sure on that but reach out to openshift redhat com to start a more
formal discussion.  Your needs and use case can help us prioritize this
feature.

> What practice can be used prior that moment?
>

Depends on your use case, you could just create two identical apps each
with an haproxy and try throwing them behind a load balancer.  There might
be some host header changes to make but I would think that would work for
several use cases.

	-Mike

> Igor Laskovy
> facebook.com/igor.laskovy
> Kiev, Ukraine
>
> On Jan 8, 2013 9:24 PM, "Mike McGrath" <mmcgrath redhat com> wrote:
>       On Tue, 8 Jan 2013, Diego Spinola Castro wrote:
>
>       > Mike, is very clear to me but lets go deeper. Sorry for annoying you but i need to be ready for dummy questions !In a tradicional environment i would use larger servers
>       > because i know apache needs more memory for start more clients and to be able to handle more sessions. Lets talk about Openshift PaaS, why an app wrote for handle scale will
>       > run better splited in small gears than larger one since apache is the same?
>       >
>
>       The theory is it won't run better, it'll run the same.  But you'll get
>       significant cost savings when increasing and decreasing gears when
>       compared to a traditional environment where you typically have to plan for
>       highest capacity even though you may only hit it 5% of the time.
>
>               -Mike
>
>       >
>       >
>       > 2013/1/8 Diego Spinola Castro <spinolacastro gmail com>
>       >       Much more!thanks
>       >
>       >       2013/1/8 Mike McGrath <mmcgrath redhat com>
>       >             On Tue, 8 Jan 2013, Diego Spinola Castro wrote:
>       >
>       > > I'm quite confuse, an apache gear with 512mb is able to handle the same number as 1gb gear? if is true, why wouldn't increase apache max_clients conf ? Just
>       > doing the devil's question. Wondering some
>       > > customer asking: Why wouldn't use larger gears?
>       > >
>       >
>       > Most people don't have access to larger gears (unless they've emailed us
>       > at openshift redhat com and requested them) and ultimately when the
>       > commercial offering is complete, they'll also cost more than the small
>       > gears.
>       >
>       > In terms of increasing max_clients, in traditional computing that's what
>       > you would do.  With our PaaS we're working with lots of small building
>       > blocks.  For example, instead of 1 1G gear, our architecture would
>       > recommend two 512M gears.  The goal is lots of small computing resources
>       > working together, not few large ones.
>       >
>       > We understand though that many applications aren't written with this new
>       > architecture in mind yet which is why we also offer the larger gears at
>       > the application tier.
>       >
>       > Databases are a whole other discussion but I think the need for larger
>       > gears there is more obvious.
>       >
>       > Does this make more sense to you?
>       >
>       >         -Mike
>       >
>       > >
>       > > 2013/1/8 Mike McGrath <mmcgrath redhat com>
>       > >       On Tue, 8 Jan 2013, Diego Spinola Castro wrote:
>       > >
>       > >       > Hi guys, i'm wondering how openshift handles cartridges sizes when autoscaling, looking into haproxy_ctld.rb code i found that autoscaling is based on
>       > current sessions and it's hardcoded by
>       > >       10. What
>       > >       > happens if i use 1gb cartridges or even 2gb? Does openshift knows that it's a larger cartridge ?
>       > >       >
>       > >
>       > > We've been looking for some more real world examples to get better
>       > > baselines for these numbers.  Keep in mind you really shouldn't be using
>       > > larger gears for more users.  There's some work to be done here to make it
>       > > great but you should think of larger gears as the same number of users
>       > > needing more memory per user.
>       > >
>       > >         -Mike
>       > >
>       > >
>       > >
>       > >
>       >
>       >
>       >
>       >
>       >
>       _______________________________________________
>       dev mailing list
>       dev lists openshift redhat com
>       http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/dev
>
>
>

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]