From: Chuck (chuck_at_sbbsnet.net)
Date: Wed 14 Sep 2005 - 05:59:53 BST
On Wednesday 14 September 2005 12:29 am, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> >
> > I added it to the /vservers mount statement in fstab and it worked
> > perfectly!
>
> good to hear!
>
> > > > also the kernel has some extended reiserfs options which are
> > > > unchecked at this time as I have never known a need for them.
> > > > Should they be enabled as well?
> > >
> > > you probably want CONFIG_REISERFS_FS_XATTR=y but
> > > I'm not sure if this is required ...
> >
> > Guess it cannot hurt to enable it anyway for safety.
> >
> > Thank you!
>
> you're welcome!
>
> > now i just hope vservers live up to my expectations.. I have been
> > given the task of finding a way to consolidate which means looking at
> > virtualizing/partitioning to cut the number of servers down. What I am
> > hoping for is enough performance to be able to reduce 39 servers to
> > just 8 or 9 hosts.. we are a fairly busy isp so some of the servers
> > are hit pretty hard..
>
> well, up to 200 guest for a dual CPU Xeon system were
> reported working, although I would not suggest to go
> that hight, especially if you expect higher load ...
>
> > the only other problem I fear I will run into is in one host there
> > will hve to be at least 4 nics since the servers are on various
> > vlans and each subnet has its assigned switch port.
>
> well, 4 nics with GB can be rarely satisfied with PC
> (and especially 32bit) arch ... if you think about
> several 100Mbit interfaces, consider using vlans instead
>
even if all the vservers on a single host were in the same network segment,
there would still have to be 2 nics due to eth1 being the private admin
network and also the one that the servers use to communicate to each other
privately for nfs or remote logging.
> > to complicate matters even more, several of the vservers will have to
> > support a few hundred ip addresses each (email and web for domains
> > with dedicated ip addresses).
>
> the current limit is at 16 IPs for each guest, but it
> can be raised (easily) but this comes with a drawback
> to the overall performance ...
>
> you might want to check if it isn't possible to break
> the hosted IPs down into smaller chunks, and take e.g.
> 10 guests for 16 IPs each (or maybe 5 with 32)
hmmm... wonder how much of a hit in performance. it is impossible to separate
them as the large chunks reside on machines with commercially licensed and
paid for software which means we cannot duplicate these hosts to spread the
load. it is all or nothing. I was anticipating future growth with those
numbers. In real numbers today, the email machine has i think around 97 ip
addresses and the web machine has in the neighborhood of 124 addresses with
the rest of the sites using name space off the main machine ip.
all the mail ips are on the same network segment and all the web are also on
their own segment.. each network segment is its own vlan within the
switching system and each machine has its own assigned switch port. since the
vlans are physical separations, it would not be possible to combine them onto
one nic.. this is why there would have to be a single nic for each vserver
guest. we have several quad-nic cards that we could use. we had 2 of those
for 8 nics on our news server once.
not only that but the load would be horrendous using a single nic for
multiple vservers.. we are already beyond the limits of 100mbit bandwidth on
the web server and the email server is pushing about 50mbit continuous at
this time. our entire network is gigabit even into the border routers.
if i can't do this, then my only other choice is to leave those 2 as dedicated
servers which i really don't want to do. the rest of the machines have less
than 10 ip addresses in each of their nics. many of these smaller servers
are sharing the same net segment so packing those into the same host would
allow them to share a single nic or two without trouble.
its just the 2 big servers that has my ulcers churning. the boss wants them
all consolidated.
>
> > I only hope this can do it as i have found nothing else suitable other
> > than the ibm partitioned minis or blades.....($$$).. I believe UML has
> > entirely too much overhead for our needs.
>
> I'm pretty sure it will ... but keep us updated
>
> best,
> Herbert
>
> >
> > > best,
> > > Herbert
> > >
> > > > Chuck
> > > >
> > > > > best,
> > > > > Herbert
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > the kernel version is 2.6.13-vs2.1.0-pre5-gentoo
> > > > > > > > the util-vserver version is util-vserver-0.30.208-r2
> > > > > > > > the host ip is 64.113.38.83 on eth0. when i saw the above
error I
> > > > > > > > the tried adding .84 ip to the host as eth0:1 but it didn't
make a
> > > > > > > > the difference
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > TIA,
> > > > > > > Herbert
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Chuck
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Vserver mailing list
> > > > > > > > Vserver_at_list.linux-vserver.org
> > > > > > > > http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Chuck
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "...and the hordes of M$*ft users descended upon me in their
anger,
> > > > > > and asked 'Why do you not get the viruses or the
BlueScreensOfDeath
> > > > > > or insecure system troubles and slowness or pay through the nose
> > > > > > for an OS as *we* do?!!', and I answered...'I use Linux'. "
> > > > > > The Book of John, chapter 1, page 1, and end of book
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Vserver mailing list
> > > > > > Vserver_at_list.linux-vserver.org
> > > > > > http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Chuck
> > > >
> > > > "...and the hordes of M$*ft users descended upon me in their anger,
> > > > and asked 'Why do you not get the viruses or the BlueScreensOfDeath
> > > > or insecure system troubles and slowness or pay through the nose
> > > > for an OS as *we* do?!!', and I answered...'I use Linux'. "
> > > > The Book of John, chapter 1, page 1, and end of book
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Vserver mailing list
> > > > Vserver_at_list.linux-vserver.org
> > > > http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > "...and the hordes of M$*ft users descended upon me in their anger,
> > and asked 'Why do you not get the viruses or the BlueScreensOfDeath
> > or insecure system troubles and slowness or pay through the nose
> > for an OS as *we* do?!!', and I answered...'I use Linux'. "
> > The Book of John, chapter 1, page 1, and end of book
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Vserver mailing list
> > Vserver_at_list.linux-vserver.org
> > http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
>
--Chuck
"...and the hordes of M$*ft users descended upon me in their anger, and asked 'Why do you not get the viruses or the BlueScreensOfDeath or insecure system troubles and slowness or pay through the nose for an OS as *we* do?!!', and I answered...'I use Linux'. " The Book of John, chapter 1, page 1, and end of book
_______________________________________________ Vserver mailing list Vserver_at_list.linux-vserver.org http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver