RE: Apache clustering w/ load balancing and failover
Michelle Konzack wrote: > > Am 2003-09-17 01:49:31, schrieb Shri Shrikumar: > >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 > > Why not using 'roundrobin' ??? > > Install a couple of Web-Servers, give each Server an IP and > then setup for each Server a A-Record on your DNS-Server > pointing to the same hostname. > Because this is only "poor man's load balancing". You maybe get (more or less) equal load on rr'ed servers, but you can't fix your DNS servers (and every other one caching your results) to not give out the A record of a failed server. It really comes donw to using LVS/keepalived or pen (I didn't even know it exists before this discussion), or an expensive black-box solution (From F5, Cisco, ). Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Apache clustering w/ load balancing and failover
Am 2003-09-17 01:49:31, schrieb Shri Shrikumar: >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 Why not using 'roundrobin' ??? Install a couple of Web-Servers, give each Server an IP and then setup for each Server a A-Record on your DNS-Server pointing to the same hostname. Have a nice evening Michelle -- Registered Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Of SANS and IOS
Normally when you buy expensive hardware the saleman should come to you. :-) Had a quick look in google for IOs and it seems that it is also refered to as IOPs Input Output Per second... And seems to refer to the controller, and not the disks. And after my quick look, the where talking about cached 20,000 - 150,000 per second. (Very Very small emc from dell)... Regards Andrew On Saturday, September 20, 2003, at 08:37AM, Russell Coker wrote: On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 08:08, Alex Borges wrote: Anyone knows What The FARKS is that IOs unit the HP SAN folk keep talking about? Like in, yeah, this thing can take 2000 IOS per second. How many bytes is an IOs supposed to be? An IO==Device blocksize or WTF? When buying serious hardware the vendor is usually happy to allow you to test it out before you buy. They should have some sort of demo-room in the nearest major city where you can plug in your own server and test it out. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Of SANS and IOS
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 08:08, Alex Borges wrote: > Anyone knows What The FARKS is that IOs unit the HP SAN folk keep > talking about? Like in, yeah, this thing can take 2000 IOS per second. > How many bytes is an IOs supposed to be? An IO==Device blocksize or WTF? For serious disk storage the bottleneck is usually seeks not amount of data transfer. So a device that can do 2000 seeks per second is reasonably fast. > Treacherous salesmen everywhere! Why not just plug one in and see how it goes? When buying serious hardware the vendor is usually happy to allow you to test it out before you buy. They should have some sort of demo-room in the nearest major city where you can plug in your own server and test it out. -- 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]
