Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-mesos-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-mesos-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D0B4E18EA7 for ; Thu, 24 Dec 2015 16:01:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 69733 invoked by uid 500); 24 Dec 2015 16:01:07 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-mesos-user-archive@mesos.apache.org Received: (qmail 69667 invoked by uid 500); 24 Dec 2015 16:01:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@mesos.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@mesos.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@mesos.apache.org Received: (qmail 69657 invoked by uid 99); 24 Dec 2015 16:01:07 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 Dec 2015 16:01:07 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id B6265C3702 for ; Thu, 24 Dec 2015 16:01:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd1-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ronlipke.com header.b=LPFCQHfV; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=g5YFzBni Received: from mx1-us-west.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ejVonMsuMQQU for ; Thu, 24 Dec 2015 16:01:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by mx1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 0D8DC20D01 for ; Thu, 24 Dec 2015 16:01:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D24D8205D0 for ; Thu, 24 Dec 2015 11:00:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from web2 ([10.202.2.212]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 24 Dec 2015 11:00:56 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ronlipke.com; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:message-id :mime-version:subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=mGQ xUL8ZPA2AS4NbwpCZoF6m4RA=; b=LPFCQHfV+EYJEgYx4xnwMGfFIpUy1gEp2uQ GRP4QPGlVR46qH8UNn47tr16xeQHBrwcH8DzoY8j+yuF86Van/QXz+fIV2T7daI+ L+irlY1urHyQQ+cjI8Q4cYNeDJzLDVe40paUak+RAu8H9k85UK2QesrohlQwo6eD JTpB5CTo= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:to:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=mGQxUL8ZPA2AS4NbwpCZoF6m4RA=; b=g5YFz BniXslZsP5Vf+XYO3V9fg9HnlYcU0B+tKFfhaZ9np4cEviPw+oKw/U8j7PIjy+Va 1aXROCfEyKBmRchaxThes0L2GFLYGKcuZyOpfh9M+jlJ7HFSGHqSUlCIC6jL3t5q 2tCd3+bx8Wez2TBdVn97OSJyt+hwWsujQ9eYIU= Received: by web2.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id A111D540368; Thu, 24 Dec 2015 11:00:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1450972856.1077090.475737874.14A779A9@webmail.messagingengine.com> X-Sasl-Enc: +8HDBi/t0jto5tq9tHnhRMZYYn570z3nnvgw4H7ibT39 1450972856 From: Ron Lipke To: user@mesos.apache.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-a93c17cb Subject: Mesos masters and zookeeper running together? Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2015 11:00:56 -0500 Hello, I've been working on setting up a mesos cluster for eventual production use and I have a question on configuring zookeeper alongside the mesos masters. Is it best practice to run zookeeper/exhibitor as a separate cluster (in our case, three nodes) or on the same machines as the mesos masters? I understand the drawbacks of increased cost for compute resources that will just be running a single service and most of the reference docs have them running together, but just wondering if it's beneficial to have them uncoupled. Thanks in advance for any input. Ron Lipke @neverminding