noob: 3 server home uec setup

[ringonian]

i know setting up uec for the home sounds like overkill but i'm contemplating a home setup for the sake of academia. but i do have a few questions:

1. looking at the minimum and recommended requirements from the documentation https://help.ubuntu.com/10.10/serverguide/C/uec.html, wouldn't the numbers seem a little excessive for a home setup especially for the uec front-end? i don't get the dual-core suggestion for the front-end.

1 1/2. shouldn't the numbers be a little more clear like "X mb ram per concurrent vms running" or "X ghz processing speed for X amount of nodes or controllers in the cloud"?

2. assuming i have a setup of:
Server A: clc/ws3/cc/sc
Server B: ws3/cc/sc/nc
Server C: nc
as there can only be 1 clc according the glossary https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UEC/Glossary, i can still have a stable cloud if Server's B or C go down. But what happens when Server A goes down?

[possnfiffer]

Hmm I'm also involved in a setup at home right now I've just used a dual core with two gigs of ram and a hex core with eight gigs for the vt nc its just that I'm having trouble with the network setup.

[ringonian]

Hmm I'm also involved in a setup at home right now I've just used a dual core with two gigs of ram and a hex core with eight gigs for the vt nc its just that I'm having trouble with the network setup.

subnetting was always my worst subject. 6-core with 8gb node. that's alot of vm's.

[kim0]

Hi!

High availability for CLC is not supported out of the box. However if that interests you it has been done, check out
http://www.roaksoax.com/2010/10/high-availability-uec-clc-howto

[ringonian]

Hi!

High availability for CLC is not supported out of the box. However if that interests you it has been done, check out
http://www.roaksoax.com/2010/10/high-availability-uec-clc-howto

thanks alot. that's exactly what i needed. after reading the link, it seems like a 3 server system wouldn't be enough - but 4 is. that seems like overkill for a home environment.

this guy http://www.roaksoax.com/2010/10/my-first-uec-deployment/comment-page-1#comment-1913 actually used vm's (kvm) to build his cloud. Depending on performance, this may be the perfect setup with a minimum of 2 physical systems to set up the cloud.

another alternative i just thought of would be to use lxc instead of kvm. it would be the same 2 system requirement with less the load (i think). the only thing about that is my knowledge of lxc is very limited. i would have no idea on how i would create "virtual block devices" to install the controllers/nodes on. but i'm sure anything's possible.

[kim0]

Note that in your case .. serverA and serverB can be merged into one box! so I think your 3 boxes can be enough, even if you want HA CLC, and one NC

[ringonian]

Note that in your case .. serverA and serverB can be merged into one box! so I think your 3 boxes can be enough, even if you want HA CLC, and one NC

i'm not sure what kind of benefit i'd get merging A and B into one box. if i have a hardware failure, there goes my cloud, right? or am i missing something?

EDIT: or if a natural disaster hit that box; same deal.

on another note, sticking with a 2 physical server ha clc, it would seem like striping the disks (2 or more disks per system) would increase performance without sacrificing stability. the one problem i see with that is if there is a disk failure on one of the machines, i'd still have my cloud up but i'd have to rebuild the entire machine.