<div dir="auto">Hi,</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Thanks everyone who shared the information with me.</div><div dir="auto">Really appreciate it.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Thanks,</div><div dir="auto">Shaghuf Rahman</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 at 02:21, Daniel Letai <<a href="mailto:dani@letai.org.il">dani@letai.org.il</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div style="direction:ltr">
<p>My go to solution is setting up Galera cluster using 2 slurmdbd
servers (each pointing to it's local db) and a 3rd quorum server.
It's fairly easy to setup and doesn't rely on block level
duplication, HA semantics or shared storage.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Just my 2 cents<br>
</p></div><div style="direction:ltr">
<p><br>
</p>
<div>On 14/04/2023 14:18, Tina Friedrich
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">Or run
your database server on something like VMWare ESXi (which is what
we do). Instant HA and I don't even need multiple servers for it
:)
<br>
<br>
I don't mean to be flippant, and I realise it's not addressing the
mysql HA question (but that got answered). However, a lot of us
will have some sort of failure-and-load-balancing VM estate
anyway, or not? Using that does - at least in my mind - solve the
same problem (just via a slightly different route).
<br>
<br>
Other than that I'd agree that HA solutions - of the pacemaker
& mirrored block devices sort - tend to make things less
reliable instead of more.
<br>
<br>
Tina
<br>
<br>
On 13/04/2023 16:03, Brian Andrus wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I think you mean both slurmctld servers
are pointing the one slurmdbd server.
<br>
<br>
Ole is right about the usefulness of HA, especially on slurmdbd,
as slurm will cache the writes to the database if it is down.
<br>
<br>
To do what you want, you need to look at configuring your
database to be HA. That is a different topic and would be
dictated by what database setup you are using. Understand the
the backend database is a tool used by slurm and not part of
slurm. So any HA in that are needs to be done by the database.
<br>
<br>
Once that is done, merely have 2 separate slurmdbd servers, each
pointing at the HA database. One would be primary and the other
a failover (AccountingStorageBackupHost). Although, technically,
they would both be able to be active at the same time.
<br>
<br>
Brian Andrus
<br>
<br>
On 4/13/2023 2:49 AM, Shaghuf Rahman wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi,
<br>
<br>
I am setting up Slurmdb in my system and I need some inputs
<br>
<br>
My current setup is like
<br>
server1 : 192.168.123.12(slurmctld)
<br>
server2: 192.168.123.13(Slurmctld)
<br>
server3: 192.168.123.14(Slurmdbd) which is pointing to both
Server1 and Server2.
<br>
database: MySQL
<br>
<br>
I have 1 more server named as server 4: 192.168.123.15 which I
need to make it as a secondary database server. I want to
configure this server4 which will sync the database and make
it either Active-Active slurmdbd or Active-Passive.
<br>
<br>
Could anyone please help me with the *steps* how to configure
and also how am i going to *sync* my *database* on both the
servers simultaneously.
<br>
<br>
Thanks & Regards,
<br>
Shaghuf Rahman
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></div></div>