Re: [Help] Find server hardware stress/benchmark tools on linux box
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 03:50, Alex Borges wrote: Bonnie++For testing your disks/storage (you can BM a samba share if you want for example) Particularly try the experimental version, it has some new features. slapper For testing your ldap Never got time to implement that one... postal To kill your smtp Postal is good for stressing systems, it stresses disk IO (synchronous writes to mail queue's), network (although it's unlikely that your mail server will be fast enough to fill 100baseT), and CPU (for SSL). -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Apache clustering w/ load balancing and failover
On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 09:50, Markus Oswald wrote: On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 02:49, Shri Shrikumar wrote: Hi, I am looking to implement an Apache cluster with Load Balancing and failover and after going through several options, the only one that is not too complex and does everything that I need seems to be pen http://siag.nu/pen/ I am curious about other peoples experience with this / other clustering software. I have already looked at software like lvs / heartbeat but it feels like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Personally I would suggest LVS / keepalived - IMHO it's the most robust and powerful solution you can currently get. Definitely worth a look... It's not as hard to setup as you think - you need a little bit of experience for planing your cluster setup, but the software installation and configuration is probably the easier part. I installed/run multiple clusters, some with quite a lot of traffic (well, that's what load-balancing is good for) some just needed the HA features. No serious problems with keepalived and no problems at all with LVS. You can also have a look at www.ultramonkey.org , deb packages avaialble. Simplifies the installation of LVS a lot. Recently, there was a article in Sysadmin mag. about clustering. There was an interesting part about openSSI, it can be found here: http://www.samag.com/documents/s=8817/sam0313b/0313b.htm -- Joost best regards, Markus -- Markus Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ Unix and Network Administration Graz, AUSTRIA \ High Availability / Cluster Mobile: +43 676 6485415\ System Consulting Fax:+43 316 428896 \ Web Development -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Apache clustering w/ load balancing and failover
By the way, what filysystem do you recomend for these kind of clusters?? NFS?? Coda?? -Mensaje original- De: Joost Veldkamp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Enviado el: miércoles, 17 de septiembre de 2003 12:05 Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Asunto: Re: Apache clustering w/ load balancing and failover On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 09:50, Markus Oswald wrote: On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 02:49, Shri Shrikumar wrote: Hi, I am looking to implement an Apache cluster with Load Balancing and failover and after going through several options, the only one that is not too complex and does everything that I need seems to be pen http://siag.nu/pen/ I am curious about other peoples experience with this / other clustering software. I have already looked at software like lvs / heartbeat but it feels like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Personally I would suggest LVS / keepalived - IMHO it's the most robust and powerful solution you can currently get. Definitely worth a look... It's not as hard to setup as you think - you need a little bit of experience for planing your cluster setup, but the software installation and configuration is probably the easier part. I installed/run multiple clusters, some with quite a lot of traffic (well, that's what load-balancing is good for) some just needed the HA features. No serious problems with keepalived and no problems at all with LVS. You can also have a look at www.ultramonkey.org , deb packages avaialble. Simplifies the installation of LVS a lot. Recently, there was a article in Sysadmin mag. about clustering. There was an interesting part about openSSI, it can be found here: http://www.samag.com/documents/s=8817/sam0313b/0313b.htm -- Joost best regards, Markus -- Markus Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ Unix and Network Administration Graz, AUSTRIA \ High Availability / Cluster Mobile: +43 676 6485415\ System Consulting Fax:+43 316 428896 \ Web Development -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Apache clustering w/ load balancing and failover
On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 12:07, Javier Castillo Alcibar wrote: By the way, what filysystem do you recomend for these kind of clusters?? NFS?? Coda?? Depends on what you want to do - for instance: Build a balanced server farm to handle a lot of traffic: Just use a NFS server as centralized storage for your document root and let all cluster-nodes access it. Your balancer(s) can handle the HA part and manage your server-pool. Your NFS server is your SPOF though if it's not a cluster itself. Build a (two node) failover cluster: Take a look at DRBD - it's a redundant network block device. You can use almost any filesystem on top of it. Preferably journaling of course. best regards Markus -- Markus Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ Unix and Network Administration Graz, AUSTRIA \ High Availability / Cluster Mobile: +43 676 6485415\ System Consulting Fax:+43 316 428896 \ Web Development -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian-based hosting needed
Hi all, I need to move my email and web server to somewhere that's not behind my ADSL connection. Obviously I am a big Debian fan, however all the server hosting companies I can find are using RedHat or that Sun sh*t. ;) Can anyone recommend a company? Hardware requirements are pretty basic, and once the server is installed, we will manage it ourselves. All we need from this company will be connectivity and the box itself. Backup would be something we'd think about if the price was right. Oh yeah, price is important as well. Thanks, Antony -- Now playing: Rush - Chain lightning -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian-based hosting needed
Hi, You could check out http://www.aktiom.net Haven't used 'em yet but have plans to very soon. Cheers Rudi. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Apache clustering w/ load balancing and failover
On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 08:50, Markus Oswald wrote: Personally I would suggest LVS / keepalived - IMHO it's the most robust and powerful solution you can currently get. Definitely worth a look... It's not as hard to setup as you think - you need a little bit of experience for planing your cluster setup, but the software installation and configuration is probably the easier part. I installed/run multiple clusters, some with quite a lot of traffic (well, that's what load-balancing is good for) some just needed the HA features. No serious problems with keepalived and no problems at all with LVS. Looking at the documentation for LVS, it mentions that it needs two nodes, a primary node and a backup node which then feeds into n real servers. Does this mean that I will need two additional machines to be able to do LVS or would I be able to double up a couple of the webservers as the nodes ? Thanks for the feedback, Best wishes, Shri -- Shri Shrikumar U R Byte Solutions Tel: 0845 644 4745 I.T. Consultant Edinburgh, Scotland Mob: 0773 980 3499 Web: www.urbyte.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Debian-based hosting needed
Greetings! On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 12:30:43 +0100 Antony Gelberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Obviously I am a big Debian fan, however all the server hosting companies I can find are using RedHat or that Sun sh*t. Can anyone recommend a company? I've got a Debian Virtual Server from http://www.greatnet.de/ Performance and price are very okay. Service (the few instances I had contact with) is extremely short-worded/brief, but competent and helpful once you got over the fact that you don't get longish explanations but the distilled response right to the point. Another one is http://vd-server.de/ (virtual server here, too) - no personal experience here. Another option would be housing of your own hardware or reinstallation of a dedicated server at hoster (e.g. as described in Linux Magazine http://www.linux-magazin.de/Artikel/ausgabe/2002/11/) Bye Volker Tanger -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian-based hosting needed
On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 12:30, Antony Gelberg wrote: I need to move my email and web server to somewhere that's not behind my ADSL connection. Obviously I am a big Debian fan, however all the server hosting companies I can find are using RedHat or that Sun sh*t. ;) Can anyone recommend a company? Hardware requirements are pretty basic, and once the server is installed, we will manage it ourselves. All we need from this company will be connectivity and the box itself. Backup would be something we'd think about if the price was right. Oh yeah, price is important as well. We are a UK based company that afford very affordable debian hosting. Here are out bottom two pricing plans for anyone who is interested. Basic Solution - £5/month + £10 Setup 40Mb web space 1 Domain name 1Gb transfer per month Unlimited email accounts (additional £5 per month) Upgrade to IMAP mail access (additional £10 per month + £10 Setup) SFTP / SSL-FTP Access (additional £10/month for VPN-Network drive access) Web mail (additional £5/month + £10 Setup) Filter Junk Mail (Additional £15/month + £10 Setup) Filter Email Viruses (Additional £15/month + £10 Setup) PHP + MySQL (Additional £10/month + £15 setup) PHP + PostgreSQL (Additional £15/month + £15 setup) Subdomains (Setup charge of £5) Standard Solution - £15/month + £10 setup 300MB Webspace (£1/MB additional) unlimited email accounts 1 Domain name 2GB data transfer per month Upgrade to IMAP mail access (additional £10/Month + £10 Setup) SFTP / SSL-FTP Access (additional £10/month for VPN-Network drive access) Web mail (additional £5/month + £10 Setup) Filter Junk Mail (Additional £15/month + £10 Setup) Filter Email Viruses (Additional £15/month + £10 Setup) PHP + MySQL (Additional £10/month + £15 setup) PHP + PostgreSQL (Additional £15/month + £15 setup) Subdomains Shri -- Shri Shrikumar U R Byte Solutions Tel: 0845 644 4745 I.T. Consultant Edinburgh, Scotland Mob: 0773 980 3499 Web: www.urbyte.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Debian-based hosting needed
Antony Gelberg ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: Can anyone recommend a company? Hardware requirements are pretty basic, and once the server is installed, we will manage it ourselves. All we need from this company will be connectivity and the box itself. Backup would be something we'd think about if the price was right. Oh yeah, price is important as well. I'm currently moving my colo'd web/email/etc stuff to a box hosted by serverbeach.com. For $99/month you get a 1GHz system, 512MB RAM, 60G disk, with a 450G/month transfer limit with a basic woody install. (I think there's an upgrade package above that) They have a SLA for 99.9% connectivity and other random frills. The final nice thing, IMO, is that they have customer forums, so people can complain/ask questions in public. -- Adam Lazur, Cluster Monkey -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Apache clustering w/ load balancing and failover
On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 15:00, Shri Shrikumar wrote: Looking at the documentation for LVS, it mentions that it needs two nodes, a primary node and a backup node which then feeds into n real servers. Actually I never saw this mentioned in the documentation - I haven't looked at it for quite some time now, tough. LVS definitely works with ONE machine which acts as the loadbalancer. You can use a second machine for failover if you need the redundancy, but as far as I know, LVS can't handle this by itself so you would have to use keepalived or heartbeat for that. The balancer hardly needs any resources - if it wasn't for the quality of the hardware (i.e. you don't want to see your balancer die and take the whole farm offline because of some el cheapo motherboard) you could use any old Pentium lying around to handle quite a bit of traffic. Even the cheapest Celeron rackserver can probably handle some hundred Megabit throughput... To sum it up: You take some machine which will act as a loadbalancer and distributes the HTTP (SMTP/POP/...) requests to you pool of real-server. To achieve this, patch your kernel or load the ipvs modules. Define a service and add real-servers... If you build some high-performance and/or high-availability farm with this setup you should also consider some other things (i.e. planing the cluster environment so you don't run into bottlenecks later), but for a first test-setup you could probably start right away... If you have further questions, we can discuss details off-list as I may become OT. best regards, Markus Oswald -- Markus Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ Unix and Network Administration Graz, AUSTRIA \ High Availability / Cluster Mobile: +43 676 6485415\ System Consulting Fax:+43 316 428896 \ Web Development -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Apache clustering w/ load balancing and failover
On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 12:05, Joost Veldkamp wrote: You can also have a look at www.ultramonkey.org , deb packages avaialble. Simplifies the installation of LVS a lot. Recently, there was a article in Sysadmin mag. about clustering. There was an interesting part about openSSI, it can be found here: http://www.samag.com/documents/s=8817/sam0313b/0313b.htm I didn't read trough the whole article, but openSSI seems to do the clustering at process-level (somewhat like Mosix). If this is the case: Technically you could probably run a webserver on top of such a cluster, but I doubt it would be a good idea as it will probably have quite a bit overhead which doesn't seem necessary for a Apache cluster. In the end the cluster would either need some really beefy hardware (especially network for the I/O I guess) and/or won't deliver the performance you would expect. A dedicated loadbalancer is probably the better solution as it doesn't add much overhead - its only job is to distribute incoming requests. Anyway: please correct me if I'm wrong! ;o) best regards Markus -- Markus Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ Unix and Network Administration Graz, AUSTRIA \ High Availability / Cluster Mobile: +43 676 6485415\ System Consulting Fax:+43 316 428896 \ Web Development -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian-based hosting needed
Thanks for the recommendation Rudi :) Yes, we provide Debian servers with full root access from $60/month. If you have any questions feel free to email me directly. Thanks, Glenn Oppegard Aktiom Networks LLC On Wednesday, September 17, 2003, at 06:59 AM, Rudi Starcevic wrote: Hi, You could check out http://www.aktiom.net Haven't used 'em yet but have plans to very soon. Cheers Rudi. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
does the new sendmail bug affect 8.11.x?
Hi, Does anyone know if the new Sendmail bug: http://www.sendmail.org/8.12.10.html affects 8.11.x? I have a few non-Debian boxes still running 8.11.7 (the 3/31 patch didn't bump the version number), and I haven't been able to find any specific info. Thanks, Eric -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Apache clustering w/ load balancing and failover
On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 18:46, Markus Oswald wrote: On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 15:00, Shri Shrikumar wrote: Looking at the documentation for LVS, it mentions that it needs two nodes, a primary node and a backup node which then feeds into n real servers. Actually I never saw this mentioned in the documentation - I haven't looked at it for quite some time now, tough. LVS definitely works with ONE machine which acts as the loadbalancer. You can use a second machine for failover if you need the redundancy, but as far as I know, LVS can't handle this by itself so you would have to use keepalived or heartbeat for that. Hi, Thanks for the response. Let me just clarify. If I have two boxes, I can configure both of them to be webservers and one of them to be the lvs node. I dont need a third machine to be a dedicated node. Is this correct ? Thanks, Shri -- Shri Shrikumar U R Byte Solutions Tel: 0845 644 4745 I.T. Consultant Edinburgh, Scotland Mob: 0773 980 3499 Web: www.urbyte.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Debian-based hosting needed
I'm currently moving my colo'd web/email/etc stuff to a box hosted by serverbeach.com. [cheap, big transfer allotment] Before you go, Google for serverbeach in news.admin.net-abuse.email. They seem to have a bit of an abuse problem over there. They seem to be downstream from Swbell/SBC, in the middle of an ADSL pool. I blocked the whole thing; Swbell has an abuse problem too. You might have trouble sending email out of there. Cameron -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Apache clustering w/ load balancing and failover
Shri Shrikumar wrote: On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 18:46, Markus Oswald wrote: On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 15:00, Shri Shrikumar wrote: Looking at the documentation for LVS, it mentions that it needs two nodes, a primary node and a backup node which then feeds into n real servers. Actually I never saw this mentioned in the documentation - I haven't looked at it for quite some time now, tough. LVS definitely works with ONE machine which acts as the loadbalancer. You can use a second machine for failover if you need the redundancy, but as far as I know, LVS can't handle this by itself so you would have to use keepalived or heartbeat for that. Hi, Thanks for the response. Let me just clarify. If I have two boxes, I can configure both of them to be webservers and one of them to be the lvs node. I dont need a third machine to be a dedicated node. Is this correct ? Ascii art: internet +---+ +---+ + - - - - - - - + | LVS Director | | Director 2 | +---+ +- - - - - - - -+ | | ---| SWITCH | -+ | | | +---+ | +---+ | | | +---+ +---+ + - - - - - - - + | Webserver | | Webserver | | Webserver | +---+ +---+ +- - - - - - - -+ You need at least 1 LVS Director (balancer) and two servers to start. The second LVS director and additional server are optional. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Apache clustering w/ load balancing and failover
On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 02:00:35PM +0100, Shri Shrikumar wrote: Looking at the documentation for LVS, it mentions that it needs two nodes, a primary node and a backup node which then feeds into n real servers. We're using a single LVS server to balance things out to 4 webserver, 2 POP mail and 2 SMTP mail servers. Actually, it's 3 webservers right now, as a hardware failure required us to steal a webserver for 'other uses' ;) All of the servers behind the LVS are netbooting from an NFS machine. This sucks because we have a single point of failure (LVS) but the intent is to get a second eLViS (hehe) running with heartbeat between the two. It's on the network map ;) So you can run it with a single LVS, but I wouldn't prefer to. Since it's simply redirecting stuff, it doesnt' need to be that powerful. j -- == + It's simply not | John Keimel+ + RFC1149 compliant!| [EMAIL PROTECTED]+ + | http://www.keimel.com + == -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian-based hosting needed
One company I've run across is tummy.com http://www.tummy.com/Hosting/DebianHosting.html They're good people and really know their stuff. Antony Gelberg writes: Hi all, I need to move my email and web server to somewhere that's not behind my ADSL connection. Obviously I am a big Debian fan, however all the server hosting companies I can find are using RedHat or that Sun sh*t. ;) Can anyone recommend a company? Hardware requirements are pretty basic, and once the server is installed, we will manage it ourselves. All we need from this company will be connectivity and the box itself. Backup would be something we'd think about if the price was right. Oh yeah, price is important as well. Thanks, Antony -- Now playing: Rush - Chain lightning -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian-based hosting needed
On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 12:30:43PM +0100, Antony Gelberg wrote: Hi all, I need to move my email and web server to somewhere that's not behind my ADSL connection. Obviously I am a big Debian fan, however all the server hosting companies I can find are using RedHat or that Sun sh*t. ;) Can anyone recommend a company? Hardware requirements are pretty basic, and once the server is installed, we will manage it ourselves. All we need from this company will be connectivity and the box itself. Backup would be something we'd think about if the price was right. Oh yeah, price is important as well. Maybe not quite what you're looking for, but I use and am very happy with my Bytemark UML host. http://www.bytemark-hosting.co.uk jc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian-based hosting needed
On Wednesday, September 17, 2003 8:59 PM [GMT+0800], Rudi Starcevic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, You could check out http://www.aktiom.net Haven't used 'em yet but have plans to very soon. I have used them. I am running my secondary MXs on one of their servers , and am very happy (actually, there is nothing to be happy about, just that they have never given cause for being unhappy, which in itself is good). Never used their support. For Debian, I have used dedicated servers from Communitech (now Interland), and Rackspace. Interland is bad, in terms of support and random reboots, and pretty clueless/rude helpdesk. Rackspace will do you a Debian, give you a discount (because you do not get OS support), and have been good so far. -- Sanjeev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Help] Find server hardware stress/benchmark tools on linux box
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 19:30:19 +0200, axacheng wrote: Hello List : We're 2 intel base testing servers need to stress/benchmark for hardware stability and reliability those are testing servers runing Debian woody... As a stress test, I'd go for compiling something beefy, such as the kernel or KDE, though there are probably special tools made to hammer systems. -- Stephen Patterson http://patter.mine.nu/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] remove SPAM to reply Linux Counter No: 142831 GPG Public key: 252B8B37 Last one down the pub's an MCSE -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
