| Re: OpenVZ vs Anything Else [message #39760 is a reply to message #39432] |
Sat, 29 May 2010 14:08  |
lars.bailey
Messages: 38
Registered: April 2010
|
Member |
|
|
I thought about creating a new topic entitled "PERCEUS vs. OpenVZ" but decided to respond here,as it would be a duplication of subject matter.
In another thread,I wanted to used CAOS LINUX with OpenVZ,and experiment with PERCEUS Clustering.
http://forum.openvz.org/index.php?t=msg&th=8594&star t=0&
In the end,this method proved to be a back-assward approach and foolish looking on my part.
PERCEUS,is a clustering software,that supports both statefull and stateless Nodes.
It is provided on CAOS 2.0 and CAOS 1.0 NSA,but can be used with RHEL 4 and 5.
Stateless "nodes" using PERCEUS,are represented as
containers,much like OpenVZ.
You can access them directly or indirectly,and install packages via RPM and YUM.
Supplied toolkits,create "capsules",for Node deployment(s).
This in principle,is no different than using an OS template and
"vzctl".
Provisioning for Nodes,can be done statically or dynamically.
Is my remarks above,meant to sway away individuals from not using OpenVZ?
Of course not.
Not everyone needs clustering.
For those who do,it may be a better approach than using REDHAT clustering,with OpenVZ.
|
|
|
|
OpenVZ Forum
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
