Skip to main content

Marathon Technologies on Virtualization and High Availability

Ping and pray, I like that ;-)

But protecting virtual environments from unplanned downtime is a different matter. In many cases, virtual environments employ traditional clustering and failover techniques, which use rudimentary heartbeat pings to check the status of a virtual machine. This approach suffers from several drawbacks:
  • Clustering and failover add cost and complexity to the environment, requiring manual configuration, setup, scripting and testing to define the appropriate actions to take in case of failures. This additional administrative complexity can introduce errors, contributing to availability issues.
  • Heartbeat pings are unable to reliably determine the health of a virtual machine and may not distinguish between I/O path failures, server failures, and lack of system resource. In some cases, these limitations may result in unnecessary or false failovers. In other cases, discrete storage or network device outages are not identified as failures and the system does not fail over.
  • The failover process is far from certain; it assumes that the administrator has configured the standby system appropriately for the application and has maintained that configuration. If the target system is not configured appropriately, then when a failover does occur, the application or virtual machine is inoperable on the standby system, causing a "failed failover." Given the sense of uncertainty, some refer to this approach as "ping and pray."


Link at Virtual Strategy Mag

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Security: VMware Workstation 6 vulnerability

vulnerable software: VMware Workstation 6.0 for Windows, possible some other VMware products as well type of vulnerability: DoS, potential privilege escalation I found a vulnerability in VMware Workstation 6.0 which allows an unprivileged user in the host OS to crash the system and potentially run arbitrary code with kernel privileges. The issue is in the vmstor-60 driver, which is supposed to mount VMware images within the host OS. When sending the IOCTL code FsSetVoleInformation with subcode FsSetFileInformation with a large buffer and underreporting its size to at max 1024 bytes, it will underrun and potentially execute arbitrary code. Security focus

OS Virtualization comparison: Parallels' Virtuozzo vs the rest

Virtuozzo's main differentiators versus hypervisors center on overhead, virtualization flexibility, administration and cost. Virtuozzo requires significantly less overhead than hypervisor solutions, generally in the range of 1% to 5% compared with 7% to 25% for most hypervisors, leaving more of the system available to run user workloads. Customers can also virtualize a wider range of applications using Virtuozzo, including transactional databases, which often suffer from performance problems when used with hypervisors. On the administration side, customers need to manage, maintain and secure just a single OS instance, while the hypervisor model requires customers to manage many OS instances. Of course, the hypervisor vendors have worked hard to automate much of this process, but it still requires more effort to manage and maintain multiple operating systems than a single instance. Finally, OS virtualization with Virtuozzo has a lower list price than the leading hypervisor for comme...