not my first choice for a high availability site. You'll never achieve
99.99% uptime with it. :-)
-Novak
-----Original Message-----
From: Joshua Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 11:13 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: DNS Auto Failover (was: CFMX and ClusterCATS?)
Ahhhh, I see, ok that's a pretty good idea actually. Other than being
slightly slower than load balancing it's not a bad idea.
I can't imagine a server being down for 20 minutes though, my boss would
have shot me long before the DNS picked up for the other box.
On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 13:56, cf-talk wrote:
> Joshua,
>
>
> The client currently uses a company called TZO (http://www.tzo.com)
>
>
> In reality though if you have control over your own DNS you can do
> this
> pretty easily... all it really is is a fast refreshing DNS zone. For
> example, if you set your zone records to expire every 20 min... you
> could easily write a .CFM script which could rewrite the DNS records
> and
> only include the records for the servers that are currently
> responding.
>
>
> -Novak
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joshua Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 10:39 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: CFMX and ClusterCATS?
>
> I know it's not the best method as you said, but how are you doing the
> DNS failover? I'd be interested as we're trying to devise a long term
> plan for balancing two servers but right now they're in different
> physical locations and I need a quick, short-term solution.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 13:21, cf-talk wrote:
> > Barney,
> >
> >
> > So did you purchase an piece of NLB hardware to run in front of your
> > boxes or are you using a Linux box to do that? Perhaps you could
> > share
> > with all of us a few more details of your setup?
> >
> >
> > All I'm really after is the ability to set up four boxes... all
> > running
> > the exact same thing... and be able to kill any of those boxes at
> any
> > time without the end user being affected. Cheap is nice... easy is
> > even
> > nicer...
> >
> >
> > The setup right now is DNS based failover but I'm not too impressed
> by
> > it. Basically it's just rewriting DNS records to remove the "dead"
> > machine... but it can take several minutes for those DNS changes to
> > roll. I want to provide something better than that.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Novak
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Barney Boisvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 10:13 AM
> > To: CF-Talk
> > Subject: RE: CFMX and ClusterCATS?
> >
> > I just set up a clustered arrangement, but I'm on Linux, so I won't
> be
> > of
> > much assistance. We didn't cluster the CF servers directly, but
> > rather
> > just
> > used a load balancer (actually a pair) in front to delegate each
> > request
> > to
> > one of the CF servers. I'm not sure what clustering the CF servers
> > directly
> > brings to the table, rather than just using an external load
> balancer.
> > Perhaps easier administration (though I doubt that), and the savings
> > from
> > not having to buy another piece of hardware? All the CF servers
> then
> > connect to a separate DB server, which also has a hot backup.
> >
> > We can kill any machine in the rack and no one will know. And
> adding
> > more
> > CF servers is just a matter of putting it in and running a single
> > script
> > on
> > the primary load balancer. Very nice setup, I think.
> >
> > cheers,
> > barneyb
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cf-talk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 9:53 AM
> > To: CF-Talk
> > Subject: CFMX and ClusterCATS?
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Sorry for the repost... but I can't believe that nobody out there
> > has
> > any info...
> >
> > Does anyone here have any experience with CFMX6.1 and clustering?
> > I'm
> > looking to load balance two T1 connections across 2-4 CFMX boxes.
> > But
> > before I go and recommend to my clients that this is the way to
> go,
> > I'd
> > like to play around with it a little myself.
> >
> > The platform would be Windows 2000 or Windows 2003 and CFMX 6.1
> > Enterprise. From what I've read about ClusterCATS it's supposed to
> > install with CFMX right? Is this also true for the trial download
> of
> > CFMX (which is the Enterprise version)? I'd hate to have to
> purchase
> > a
> > full blown enterprise version just to test this all out.
> >
> > As a side note... Windows 2003 has built in clustering which may
> or
> > may
> > not do what I need. Basically what I'm looking for is network load
> > balancing (NLB) across 2-4 machines. If one machine fails (for any
> > reason) I want it to go unnoticed by the customer.
> >
> > Can someone out there point me in the right direction? I have
> > several
> > boxes I can use to set this up and test with... Just need a push
> in
> > the
> > right direction.
> >
> > -Novak
> >
> > _____
> >
> >
> >
> _____
>
>
>
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
