Synchronize Plesk Servers (Failover)
Keep two (or more) Plesk servers in sync for a failover scenario.
Migration Manager only allows manual "sync"
Ralph Keck
shared this idea
Although the implemented solution differs from the initial demand, we are closing the request as "already available”. We have thoroughly investigated the idea to solve the redundancy issue using a Plesk cluster. Our research has proved that this solution is not in step with the times, is no longer demanded by our partners, and has its limitations. We would like to give an explanation of each point.
More than nine years ago, when the request was created, the IT world had already begun to change. Previously, partners and customers bought or rented bare-metal servers and organized them in data centers. If the servers did not have sufficient component redundancy, there was a risk that a power supply or hard drive failure would lead to service downtime. However, a synchronized failover server could save hosting from such problems. But since then, hosting infrastructure has changed significantly. These days, public clouds are everywhere, partners and customers use virtualization systems, and software runs in containers.
We interviewed our partners to make sure they still needed a high-availability (failover) cluster for Plesk. It turned out that the majority of partners already had virtualization systems in their infrastructure. To protect a server with Plesk from failures, many partners already use high-availability features provided by virtualization systems. Some partners are no longer interested in a high-availability (failover) cluster. Instead, they would like to have a high-load cluster with active/active nodes, where the load is balanced between all cluster members.
In the meantime, we tried building a Plesk cluster. It proved to be possible but with many limitations. A Plesk cluster also requires more servers and resources for deployment from partners and customers, which leads to increased infrastructure costs. The solution would be unreasonably expensive for end users. Developing a Plesk cluster further and making it suitable for production requires lots of additional investments. They will not justify themselves from the point of view of our partners, customers, end users, and Plesk itself. Should anyone decide to continue the research on how to adapt Plesk to be a part of a failover cluster, we have published our research results together with the proof of concept. If you have any feedback, we have created a topic about high availability Plesk on our forum.
Note: We recommend using a centralized database and centralized file storage (NFS) together with virtualization systems and/or cloud providers that provide high-availability functionality on the server rather than the software level. At the same time, we do not plan to continue developing any high-availability redundancy on the application level.
— AY
-
SW
commented
They could've easily accomplished this before they killed off Plesk Multi-Server which had node synchronization for some plesk components. And it would have benefited Plesk as they bill for the management node. We use to utilize it paying double than what we currently do but terminated it due to plesk stopped developing it. So it's plesk lost as it seems they have no plans to invest in this capability.
-
Anonymous
commented
depending on the licensing it could actually be good for business if you have to pay more or an additional license to have a second server. For us its the main thing holding us back from using it for really critical sites and applications.
-
Lau
commented
I suspect they are concerned because of the scope of implementing such feature. But this is in 3rd place for user suggestions, so this should be implemented ASAP.
Start off with just synchronizing the settings (or parts of them) for selected subscriptions. Synchronizing files and databases can be added later. If all that is done, doing the work for HA might become possible.
@63352059-plesk-staff Does anybody of the staff like to comment? -
Anonymous
commented
It is for sure that Plesk has some business concern behind "not making HA possible in Plesk". Anyway there are already two panels that have such function, i personally don't like them and yes it would be cool to see that function in Plesk. Maybe massive tickets to ask Plesk support about implementing such function ?.
-
Pascal
commented
Very interesting feature. Is it still not possible to do this?
-
kazuya
commented
Plesk can't build scalable website hosting on AWS
-
susil
commented
Very useful I need this..
-
DH
commented
Need this too
-
Luboš
commented
Need this..
-
sim
commented
now in 2019 - where is this feature??
-
Anonymous
commented
Very useful I need this
-
Fadh Projects
commented
need this +1
-
Webmeister
commented
Please make shure that PostgreSQL is included in the failover system, thanks!!
-
Webmeister
commented
Just think of this as a selling opportunity: A failover system needs two Plesk licenses!
-
Luigi
commented
a must please develope it, or people will live plesk and server o vserv for a cloud system
-
David Roussel
commented
@H50K - failover isn't for backup. MySQL already has master <-> ***** ( https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.0/en/replication.html ) and with Webmin you can setup failover clusters ( https://doxfer.webmin.com/Webmin/Cluster_Webmin_Servers )
The fact that >95% of Plesk is based on open sourced/FOSS and doesn't have failover is pathetic and inexcusable.
-
H50K
commented
HA or Backup?
For HA there will be need for mysql replication etc..This would be super nice and interesting..
-
Alvaro Split
commented
Nowadays, this is a must!
-
Anonymous
commented
If you suggesting like server1 for ns1.website.tld server2 for ns2.website.tld (different dedicated machines) we totally need it. I love plesk but im still unsure about using plesk for my clients just because i cant guarantee 100% uptime with plesk.
-
Gui
commented
Still not started investigating, developping or even started a discussion or planified in this must-have feature ? Since 6 years this suggestion has been posted ? what the **** ?!