VMware Cloud Community
geekinabox
Contributor
Contributor

Heartbeat Newbie Question: Is the passive server *really* hidden?

We're currently using MS Clustering on VC to provide HA ... looking to move away from that to a 'supported' HA solution (likely Heartbeat).

MS cluster has an active and passive node.  However, the passive node is always up and live on the network -- it just isn't running the protected app, and doesn't own the 'cluster' IP address.  Since the passive node is always live, I can connect to it (remote desktop), and rely on all of my automation systems to patch it, take software updates that we deploy, take daily AV updates, back it up, inventory it (in asset sytems).  In other words, the passive system is live and 'manageable' ... it just isn't running the protected app.

How does this translate to Heartbeat? I keep hearing that the passive node is hidden from the network.  Is this true?  Is it 'manageable' even when passive (per all of the things above - av, software updates, patching, inventory)?  I see the concept of a management IP (in addition to the 'cluster' IP) -- does this facilitate all of the management functions properly?  Does VC get bound to the cluster IP, while of the OS and other services ride on the mangement IP (even when passive)?

How are folks dealing with this?  I don't need/want a one-off server that I can't automatically manage and/or gets out of date due to be 'hidden'.

Thanks much

Reply
0 Kudos
5 Replies
weinstein5
Immortal
Immortal

vCenter Heartbeat is more a mirroring of the application of the application so if a probrem occurs with the primary server the application is 'instantly' on line - the server hosting the mirrored instance is accessible -

Just curious are you licensed for HA? and if you are why not host VC in a virtual machine and rely on HA for failover - simplifies the set up

If you find this or any other answer useful please consider awarding points

If you find this or any other answer useful please consider awarding points by marking the answer correct or helpful
Reply
0 Kudos
geekinabox
Contributor
Contributor

I understand that Heartbeat mirrors the application ... but I am still wanting to understanding the availability and manageability of the underlying OS and other services on the passive server. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Heartbeart does not replicate the entirety of the OS, does it?  So I still have an underlying OS and set of services that I need to regularly update/patch/manage.

As far as the "why not use HA" question/rabbit-hole -- we've been using HA for years.  Though I love my virtual environment and am its principal diehard evangelist, philosophically I subscribe to the "don't put your manager inside the system it is managing" (all eggs in one basket) argument ... especially in large corporate infrastructure running 1000s of VMs (we're a Fortune 200 $15 billion company ... critical outages can measure in the $millions).  Additionally, while HA (and FT, for that matter) protects from hardware failures, we have enough dependencies on VC that we desire a HA solution that also protects against OS and application failures, & maintains app availability during patching/update windows.

At the end of the day it's a philosophical argument, and comes down to how you view & manage risk.  I appreciate the ability to run my VC as a virtual, and in another environment w/ less exacting availability requirements I'd likely do so.

Reply
0 Kudos
geekinabox
Contributor
Contributor

Good info .. thanks.  Sounds like 6.3.1 may be what I'm hoping/looking for (good timing 🙂 ).  Looking forward to seeing more on that.

To probe your "the second server ... is a 100% clone" comment ... do you really mean 100%?  Does every file on the system get replicated (OS, other services)?  Or do you really mean "100% of the VC application content, and all of the unique elements that give a server an identity (name/ip/etc)"?

I'm no Heartbeat expert (obviously) but I've assumed that, by the very nature of running inside the OS, it cannot completely keep the underlying OS 100% in sync ... am I wrong?

Reply
0 Kudos
vJustinKing
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

at the time of install it is a complete 100% clone but once you start up heartbeat it will only replicate the registry/vC configuration and dVC data changes to keep the application in synch. OS is not replicated and patches will need to be applied to both nodes and this is obviously easier with the new version. You can also use heartbeat to protect the SQL environment as long as it is a standalone, non clustered otherwise your DBA's will need to make sure the database is available during a failover for full operation

Justin Justin King – Sr Technical Marketing Manager vCenter Server: Virtualization and Cloud Platform
geekinabox
Contributor
Contributor

Thanks for the info.  Looking forward to seeing 6.3.1 (tomorrow?) and hoping it lives up to the billing ...

Managing the 2 Heartbeat nodes as 2 separate machines makes much more sense IMO.  If node #2 was purely a (stale) clone of node #1, I have a hard time seeing how many standard management practices would work smoothly ...

Reply
0 Kudos