Thanks, Stuart. rdr with PF looks a viable option for me. pen works with tcp applications only, I would need udp also. Will check for more details on rdr.
On Fri, 7 Apr 2006 10:49:38 +0100, "Stuart Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 06:00:20PM -0700, Andrew Ng wrote: > > as noted in the FAQ - "it's not expected that you will achieve perfect > > 50/50 distribution between the two machines", wonder if there any > > way(software, configuration, hardware etc) to be able control the > > distribution for CARP? Even/control-able distribution is important for > > me as the resources(bandwidth, CPU, diskspace etc) allocated would not > > substain heavy load. > > How about a PF box (or pair of them CARP'd) in front of the > servers you're load-balancing and use rdr, with round-robin or > random distribution, with or without sticky-address. > > The back-end servers still need to use CARP to get fast failover > if a box goes down (i.e. you rdr to CARP-protected addresses), > you can adjust the rdr rule either by a script or by hand to fine- > tune (list the same address multiple times if you want to increase > the number of requests going to that machine). You could script > to check for service availability (rather than just the box being > up). > > pen (in packages) could be another option. > -- Andrew Ng [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Access your email from home and the web
