On 24 October 2012 17:59, Bill Moseley <mose...@hank.org> wrote: > PerlBal (as in this old post: > http://lists.danga.com/pipermail/perlbal/2005-November/000138.html ) can do > this as well. > > I wonder about the topology. We used to run with Perlbal (and heartbeat > and IP failover) in front of a pool of web servers. We now run with > hardware load balancers in front of a pool of web servers. > > The load balancer does make it easy to adjust the pool -- as well as > gracefully handle a web server dropping out of the pool. I don't want to > add yet another set of servers for an extra proxy layer. > > So, I'm currently thinking of running Nginx on each web server. (Keep-alive > between the load balancer and Nginx, and no keep-alive between Nginx and > Catalyst with maybe Starman.)
Um... how is adding nginx instead of perlbal not "adding yet another set of servers"? Perlbal does more than simple pooling and proxying too - it's very useful indeed for rewriting urls and stuff like reproxying, etc that h/ware load balancers don't support > Anyone see why this might be a bad (or good) approach? What features of nginx are you looking to use vs say perlbal - depends on how you'd use it and what for, and how easily either would acheive your goals easily - perlbal *could* have a short/shallower learning curve, or nginix may be drop-in job that just works without any customisation or special extensions A. -- Aaron J Trevena, BSc Hons http://www.aarontrevena.co.uk LAMP System Integration, Development and Consulting _______________________________________________ List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/