cPanel High Availability Roadmap
-
Thanks, @cPanelDustin - so excited to see this!!! 0 -
Amazing News! 0 -
Let's hope and pray that they won't dare to add more extra costs for features that should be available years ago. Personally, any future price increase by cpanel, i will drop all the licenses i have with them and make a final goodbye. 0 -
thats great news! happy to be beta tester if needed @cPanelDustin 0 -
That is very exciting news. 0 -
cool, great news, looking forward to it. 0 -
Yes Awesome News, Well Needed and Will Be Well Used. Thanks @cPanelDustin more good news :) 0 -
Awaiting feature for sure.. 0 -
Waiting..... 0 -
I'd like to ask what features you all might find useful or necessary when it comes to High Availability. What are things that would be valuable to you? I think for all of us working on this project we want to ensure that we're building something that is useful and valuable to everyone and the only way we can really make that happen is by finding out what you want and need. Thanks! 0 -
For us the least useful feature is DNS load balancing. We already have a cPanel DNS-only cluster, so we have no need for that. It also seems a little funny that you put config guide at the end (although that's not what the text of the post says). We'll look forward to this and test it, but in all honestly, I'm not sure how much sales traction we'll actually get. We offered HA in another product line we have (not web hosting related) and most clients were interested until they figured out they had 2X the server costs (dedicated or VPS). When they sat down and figured out what the mostly cost vs. the small amount of downtime that they typically had, it did not end up making a lot of sense to most customers. The HA also added a fair amount of complexity in upgraded. Things like MySQL upgrades immediately come to mine. It's trivial (thank you cPanel) to to upgrade MySQL, but if you have a replicated database, that's going to get more complex. 0 -
Great News! and expecting a price hike on coming months. 0 -
:D 0 -
For us the least useful feature is DNS load balancing. We already have a cPanel DNS-only cluster, so we have no need for that. It also seems a little funny that you put config guide at the end (although that's not what the text of the post says). We'll look forward to this and test it, but in all honestly, I'm not sure how much sales traction we'll actually get. We offered HA in another product line we have (not web hosting related) and most clients were interested until they figured out they had 2X the server costs (dedicated or VPS). When they sat down and figured out what the mostly cost vs. the small amount of downtime that they typically had, it did not end up making a lot of sense to most customers. The HA also added a fair amount of complexity in upgraded. Things like MySQL upgrades immediately come to mine. It's trivial (thank you cPanel) to to upgrade MySQL, but if you have a replicated database, that's going to get more complex.
I know my team is specifically working on SQL aspect of this, but since this is a collaborative effort between 4 teams, this is all valuable feedback thank you for taking the time to provide it.0 -
looking forward for this feature as one of our upcoming project requires HA mandatory. 0 -
The roadmap is looking pretty good. Using K8 is a very good idea. It would help greatly in isolation of websites/accounts, resource management and limits and security. Will the db deployments also be per-site? The web pods are per-site basis. If the db pods are also per-site basis and they are HA (like some operators out there), that would help a lot in isolation of sites. Also NFS is a major pain point. If you could select a good K8 operator (rook-ceph etc) to provide it from within cPanel itself, that would help greatly. Otherwise operating an NFS would be problematic for a majority. 0 -
Will the db deployments also be per-site? The web pods are per-site basis. If the db pods are also per-site basis and they are HA (like some operators out there), that would help a lot in isolation of sites.
Clarification: Web pods will be per-user, not per-site. The current plan is for all users to access a single DB pod. We expect to reassess these sorts of things as we deploy and refine the offering.Also NFS is a major pain point. If you could select a good K8 operator (rook-ceph etc) to provide it from within cPanel itself, that would help greatly. Otherwise operating an NFS would be problematic for a majority.
From what we found, k8s-based storage solutions generally focus on providing nonvolatile storage for the cluster itself; we need something that serves the cluster and the cPanel server concurrently. Some technologies, like Rancher Longhorn, do expose iSCSI, but iSCSI doesn"t really accommodate concurrent access. NFS is a simple, flexible, and ubiquitous solution to that end. It can be deployed standalone or (via NFS-Ganesha) as a frontend/proxy to Ceph, Gluster, etc. So customers can choose the replicated-filesystem technology that best suits their needs. That all said, this is another area we expect to reassess as we deploy & refine.0 -
Clarification: Web pods will be per-user, not per-site. The current plan is for all users to access a single DB pod. We expect to reassess these sorts of things as we deploy and refine the offering.
It's great that you are working on it. However, it seems there are issues with the following:- There will be no option to limit databases resources per cPanel account.
0 -
It shouldn't be possible without running multiple database pods per cPanel account.
I meant it shouldn't be possible without running database pod/s for each cPanel account. This is how it seems to be for now.0 -
@Maccess - this is fixed now! 0 -
@WorkinOnIt - I thought I got all the links fixed - can you link me to a specific post where they aren't working? 0 -
Revisiting this, it feels like it would be instrumental to have the NFS service built-in. Not having it would limit the reach of the HA edition of cPanel, since it would be difficult and expensive for small to medium hosts to run their own NFSes. Even larger hosts could avoid it for the reason that maintaining an NFS service is a major commitment. Considering how the two widely available and reliable managed NFS services are AWS's own NFS service and Google's Filestore, this is pretty limiting. AWS's NFS service is told to suffer from low performance while Google Filestore works quite well but Google Cloud's egress costs are a killer for any consumer hosting operation. But if cPanel created/forked a shared storage operator (ceph, rook, gluster etc) and maintained it themselves, this would make it possible for the cloud edition to have its own NFS built inside and allow the cloud edition to be adopted more widely than it would otherwise. 0 -
Any updates? I see nothing since I provided feedback. 0 -
I reached out to @cPanelLauren and she's going to provide an update on this a bit later. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
33 comments