3 Replies Latest reply on Feb 9, 2018 5:59 AM by Andrew Waters

    Skynet Discovery Cluster

    James Wyatt

      Hi Guys,

       

      I've been reading up on Discovery clusters and have many questions. Probably too many. So let me reverse it. If I advise what I'm trying to do and provide a little information about why, can you advise if it is possible? or point out the flaws?

       

      I'm a very happy chappy and a lucky one too. I've been given the nod to create a new Discovery environment at work, and I get to choose how it's structured. Our current environment consists of a single consolidator and 5 scanners. Each scanner operates within it's own environment and feeds back to the Consolidator. Due to issues that for professional reasons I can't list, this configuration is unmanageable and without any redundancy or speed benefits.

       

      What I want, is to create a single Discovery cluster with members that can automatically be deployed from within our vmware esxi infrastructure. The deployment would include optimally configured disk sizes and scsi settings etc and the members would automatically sync with the cluster, picking up all TPL and EDP updates and all scanning schedule information etc. Basically I want a fire and forget cluster with all the benefits of extra speed and redundancy. I want a super cluster and I want to call it skynet!

       

      Is any of this possible? do I need to keep the consolidator cluster and the scanning cluster separate? and after I get that answer I need to work out how big the disk sizes need to be. If I build it, I think they will come!

       

      Best Regards,

       

      James

        • 1. Re: Skynet Discovery Cluster
          Andrew Waters

          Your first problem is that it is not cheap to add a member to a cluster. The data is distributes across a cluster so when a member is added the data is re-distributed across the cluster. So realistically you are almost certainly going to need to keep a consolidator and multiple scanners.

          • 2. Re: Skynet Discovery Cluster
            James Wyatt

            Hi Andrew,

             

            I don't mind if it's not cheap.

             

            If I did want to build a beast of an environment, and my current DB size was say 500GB on a 1TB disk. Are you saying that a clustered equivalent would require multiple members, all with 1TB disks or would I feasibly be able to lower this requirement, as the capacity would be shared? Or, is it the case that the DB is replicated as exact copies to all other nodes?

             

            Best Regards,

             

            James

            • 3. Re: Skynet Discovery Cluster
              Andrew Waters

              Assuming you have a fault tolerant cluster how many copies of a node will depend upon the size of the cluster. Although there is duplication of nodes the overall disk requirements on individual machines would be lower. However, adding a member redistributes this data so has significant cost.

               

              All the members are expected to be in the same location as they need low latency and to handle significant traffic amongst the members.