On Wednesday, December 13, 2006, at 09:20:11, pf@benzedrine.cx wrote: > I think that's the route we're going to take. I'm thinking about > writing a listener on all of the servers in the pool that report to a > "server" on the pf-enabled load balancers. The server would then > add/remove devices from the tables using pfctl. We're interested in > having this work in a heterogeneous OS environment so we'll probably use > PERL instead of a Shell.
But remember about the following: 1. if you only send info to PF load-balancer it will newer get known if your sender will get down. So you have to use sth what will check if sender is up or not. 2. when you have feedback from server farm (aka senders) just like it's written in point 1., you can make "clever" load-balancing, i.e. if your sender will tell you "oh, my cpu is going to have 95% load" you can send to him half less packets than before (of course as soon as other protocol than round-robin or source-hash will be supported in PF rdr rule). BTW, Daniel and other developers: do you plan such thing? 3. No matter if it's case 1 or 2 you have to put some software which will tell you sth is wrong at the server-farm boxes - we've made simple script which was writing OK/ERRROR NUMBER XXX if shell script connected to it (on other port of course and it was simple script binded to that port) > If anyone wants a copy of the scripts just let me know and I'll send > them individually or as an announcement to the list if there's enough > interest. If I can help in that case please let me know :) -- Sylwester S. Biernacki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-NET, http://www.xnet.com.pl/
