Re: Apache clustering w/ load balancing and failover

2003-09-21 Thread Mario Lopez

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.


The problem with round robin is that when one server fails over it keeps sending them 
connections, I once saw a DNS server implemented in Perl which worked in a round robin 
fashion but making some kind of test to know if the server was up and running 
correctly, I remeber it was called something like lb-named

Mario.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



RE: Apache clustering w/ load balancing and failover

2003-09-21 Thread Thomas Lamy
Mathieu Martin wrote:
 
 Mario Lopez wrote:
 
 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.
 
 
 
 
 The problem with round robin is that when one server fails 
 over it keeps sending them connections, I once saw a DNS 
 server implemented in Perl which worked in a round robin 
 fashion but making some kind of test to know if the server 
 was up and running correctly, I remeber it was called 
 something like lb-named
 
 Mario.
 
 Why not use (keepalived?) with round robin dns then?. You get load 
 balancing, redundancy, and you don't need unnecessary additionnal 
 servers or kernel patches or whatever. Even with a lot of servers, it 
 should scale pretty well. Works too with servers in several 
 locations on 
 different internet pipes, as long as there are at least two 
 servers on 
 each pipe for redundancy.
 
You're wrong. round robin dns isn't HA, isn't load balancing, it's just
request spreading. You can't control how many (DNS-)clients cache one of the
RR IP's, therefore you won't get even load on your RR'ed servers.
Plus you _have_ to use a tool like lb-named to keep your round robin dns
from giving out the IP of a failed server.

It really comes down to using LVS+(keepalived|heartbeat|...) or pen.

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: Apache clustering w/ load balancing and failover

2003-09-21 Thread Mathieu Martin
Thomas Lamy wrote:

Mathieu Martin wrote:
 

Mario Lopez wrote:

   

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.
  

   

The problem with round robin is that when one server fails 
 

over it keeps sending them connections, I once saw a DNS 
server implemented in Perl which worked in a round robin 
fashion but making some kind of test to know if the server 
was up and running correctly, I remeber it was called 
something like lb-named
   

Mario.

 

Why not use (keepalived?) with round robin dns then?. You get load 
balancing, redundancy, and you don't need unnecessary additionnal 
servers or kernel patches or whatever. Even with a lot of servers, it 
should scale pretty well. Works too with servers in several 
locations on 
different internet pipes, as long as there are at least two 
servers on 
each pipe for redundancy.

   

You're wrong. round robin dns isn't HA, isn't load balancing, it's just
request spreading. You can't control how many (DNS-)clients cache one of the
RR IP's, therefore you won't get even load on your RR'ed servers.
Plus you _have_ to use a tool like lb-named to keep your round robin dns
from giving out the IP of a failed server.
It really comes down to using LVS+(keepalived|heartbeat|...) or pen.

Thomas
 

If you use keepalived to switch IP's, you don't care about your dns 
server giving the IP of a failed server because your working server(s) 
keep answering on the ip of the failed server. And BIG isp's caches 
cache entire dns query results (all ip's, not only one). It's up to the 
client's dns resolver to use one IP at random. If you've got enough 
volume that you need load sharing, you should have enough randomness to 
split the load _almost_ equally. Of course, I'm not saying this is as 
good as a real LVS setup, but it could be a good compromise.

Mathieu





--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]


RE: Apache clustering w/ load balancing and failover

2003-09-21 Thread Shri Shrikumar
On Sun, 2003-09-21 at 15:05, Thomas Lamy wrote:
 You're wrong. round robin dns isn't HA, isn't load balancing, it's just
 request spreading. You can't control how many (DNS-)clients cache one of the
 RR IP's, therefore you won't get even load on your RR'ed servers.
 Plus you _have_ to use a tool like lb-named to keep your round robin dns
 from giving out the IP of a failed server.
 
 It really comes down to using LVS+(keepalived|heartbeat|...) or pen.

Thanks for all the feedback.

What about mod_proxy + wackamole ? anybody have experience with this
combination ?

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