Request for Additional Detail in Swift Documentation - keystone and swift proxy colo

Reported by Richard Raseley on 2012-04-24
6
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
openstack-manuals
Low
Tom Fifield

Bug Description

I think it would be worthwhile to talk about what services can be co-located on the same servers as Swift. For example "Can I run Keystone in combination with Swift Proxy and Swift Storage?"

Anne Gentle (annegentle) on 2012-05-03
summary: - Request for Additional Detail in Swift Documentation
+ Request for Additional Detail in Swift Documentation - keystone and
+ swift proxy colo
Changed in openstack-manuals:
status: New → Confirmed
importance: Undecided → Medium
Tom Fifield (fifieldt) on 2012-06-16
tags: removed: documentation
Tom Fifield (fifieldt) on 2012-08-25
Changed in openstack-manuals:
importance: Medium → Low
Tom Fifield (fifieldt) wrote :

A fantastic response from John Dickinson himself:

From the Swift perspective, there isn't any reason other services can't be run on the Swift boxes. I'd check for a few things, though.

1) Make sure dependencies aren't in conflict. Thanks to the work of the CI team, this should be mostly sane.

2) Obviously, monitor your systems and don't overload something. Some parts of Swift will use CPU (eg the proxy servers) and other will use IOPS (eg container and object servers). Try to balance the other things you run to complement each other.

3) If you have enough hardware to have separate proxy and storage nodes, Swift assumes that your storage nodes will be on a private network (ie Swift doesn't provide any additional security to the messages within the cluster). Although there are some proposed ideas about making this better, I wouldn't put other public services on boxes running the backend Swift storage processes, at least without some additional limitations on what can connect to the Swift ports.

4) Make sure the ports you are running the services on don't conflict. All of the ports used by Swift are configurable.

So while it's not a "terrible, terrible idea", I certainly wouldn't call it "best practice". You can make it work, just pay attention to what you're doing.

Changed in openstack-manuals:
status: Confirmed → Triaged
Tom Fifield (fifieldt) on 2012-11-12
Changed in openstack-manuals:
status: Triaged → In Progress
assignee: nobody → Tom Fifield (fifieldt)

Reviewed: https://review.openstack.org/15861
Committed: http://github.com/openstack/openstack-manuals/commit/57ade0264bc3301d9cc1f0f1e0d4a752f77e56f5
Submitter: Jenkins
Branch: master

commit 57ade0264bc3301d9cc1f0f1e0d4a752f77e56f5
Author: Tom Fifield <email address hidden>
Date: Mon Nov 12 14:39:09 2012 +0900

    Add a section on co-locating services

    fixes bug 988053

    As in the bug request, people are often interested in running
    services from different OpenStack projects on one piece of kit.

    This patch adds a new section in common on co-locating services,
    explaining the catches and things to look out for.
    It's then linked from the compute install guide's architecture
    section, and the install guide's assumption section.

    Change-Id: I42a2843cb69fffd523a18143dc41e5275d9e5215

Changed in openstack-manuals:
status: In Progress → Fix Released
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers