Linux - NetworkingThis forum is for any issue related to networks or networking.
Routing, network cards, OSI, etc. Anything is fair game.
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
SDN 101: An Introduction to Software Defined Networking
Discover the advantages of SDN.
SDN has quickly become one of the hottest trends in IT. But not all SDN solutions offer real software-defined functionality. As more enterprises consider SDN, they want to know, “What is SDN? And what are the real benefits?” If you're ready to explore the advantages of SDN, and want to know how it should be implemented within your enterprise, start by reading our introductory white paper.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
i am new to clustering, and as i understand it the simple way to go is with openmosix.
my friend is an admin of a windows network with a bunch of web and other services. we were wondering how rational it would be to run these boxes instead as virtual machines on top of a linux cluster.
i have googled around, and read some docs, but there is really so much out there i don't know where the best place is to start.
beyond that, here is what we have:
-a bunch of spare x86 pcs, and some running x86 servers
-everything is on windows 2003
-all kinds of services, too much for a migration to linux actually
what we hope to get:
-a system with good failure redundancy (ie. 2nd vm takes over where first virt server failed)
-secure (obviously windows is responsible for the network security, no flames please ;-)
-easy to administrate, add and remove nodes with different hardware
what i wasn't so sure about was vmware server, and whether it ran in only 1 or 2 threads, or more. my understanding was a cluster could expedite jobs with lots of threads, or execute many compiles/whatever concurrently, but not spread the tasks associated with 1 thread over many machines.
what would be good is if eg. the web server, when swamped, could spread the work over the cluster. i don't know how trivial this is to implement.
can anyone direct me to a good starting point? anyone had similar experiences?
Clusters are really designed to split large, computationally intensive jobs across multiple systems. In order for something like VMWare to run on a cluster, it must be written to be cluster-aware. AFAIK, there's no virtualization software that's cluster aware in this fashion.
What you're really after, I think, is some combination of virtualization and failover. In this scenario, you'd have n machines running virtualization, with multiple Windows instances running on each machine. The Windows instances themselves would be set up to fail over to a Windows instance running on another machine in the event of a failure. For something like that, VMWare's ESX would work well:
I've done this sort of thing with Linux--created mutliple VM's on multiple hardware platforms with applications failing over to VM's on other hardware in the event of a hardware failure. It allows you to build a pretty robust environment.