Re: Advice needed : transproxy

2001-04-15 Thread Haim Dimermanas

> You might want to try a hardware based balancer.  Something like Local
Director.

Cisco bought Arrowpoint last year or so. I had the pleasure to play with
their CSS-11000 and it kicks ass!

The Local Director never was a good load balancer, it was more of a
intellingent routing switch doing load balancing. You can achieve the
same kind of thing with Foundry NetIrons and the like. The CSS-11000 on
the other hand is a real layer 4 switch. It can do all sorts of things
that makes it compete with big names like F-5 Big IP and the Web
Director. If you are considering getting a load balancer from Cisco, go
for the CSS family.


my $0.02
Haim.
-- 
Whatthehellhashappenedtomydamnspacebar?!?!?





Re: Advice needed : transproxy

2001-04-14 Thread Haim Dimermanas


> You might want to try a hardware based balancer.  Something like Local
Director.

Cisco bought Arrowpoint last year or so. I had the pleasure to play with
their CSS-11000 and it kicks ass!

The Local Director never was a good load balancer, it was more of a
intellingent routing switch doing load balancing. You can achieve the
same kind of thing with Foundry NetIrons and the like. The CSS-11000 on
the other hand is a real layer 4 switch. It can do all sorts of things
that makes it compete with big names like F-5 Big IP and the Web
Director. If you are considering getting a load balancer from Cisco, go
for the CSS family.


my $0.02
Haim.
-- 
Whatthehellhashappenedtomydamnspacebar?!?!?



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




Re: Advice needed : transproxy

2001-04-13 Thread Chris Wagner
Another way to accomplish that would be a Cisco router set to trunking.
Evenly dividing the traffic flow to two servers.

At 10:15 PM 4/11/01 -0400, Chris Wagner wrote:
>At 04:56 PM 4/5/01 +0200, Alson van der Meulen wrote:
>>I don't think transproxy will handle such a load quite well, but you
>>can try and find out :)
>
>You might want to try a hardware based balancer.  Something like Local
Director.
>
>
>
>
>---==---
>___/``\___
>
>0100
>
>
>--  
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>


---==---
___/``\___

0100




Re: Advice needed : transproxy

2001-04-13 Thread Chris Wagner

Another way to accomplish that would be a Cisco router set to trunking.
Evenly dividing the traffic flow to two servers.

At 10:15 PM 4/11/01 -0400, Chris Wagner wrote:
>At 04:56 PM 4/5/01 +0200, Alson van der Meulen wrote:
>>I don't think transproxy will handle such a load quite well, but you
>>can try and find out :)
>
>You might want to try a hardware based balancer.  Something like Local
Director.
>
>
>
>
>---==---
>___/``\___
>
>0100
>
>
>--  
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>


---==---
___/``\___

0100


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




Re: Advice needed : transproxy

2001-04-11 Thread Chris Wagner
At 04:56 PM 4/5/01 +0200, Alson van der Meulen wrote:
>I don't think transproxy will handle such a load quite well, but you
>can try and find out :)

You might want to try a hardware based balancer.  Something like Local Director.




---==---
___/``\___

0100




Re: Advice needed : transproxy

2001-04-11 Thread Chris Wagner

At 04:56 PM 4/5/01 +0200, Alson van der Meulen wrote:
>I don't think transproxy will handle such a load quite well, but you
>can try and find out :)

You might want to try a hardware based balancer.  Something like Local Director.




---==---
___/``\___

0100


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




Re: Advice needed : transproxy

2001-04-05 Thread Alson van der Meulen
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 04:19:38PM +0200, Francis 'Dexter' Gois wrote:
> 
>  Hi,
>  
>  I intend to set up a transparent proxying system here. We have a lot of 
>  traffic, so the server receiving the requests shall be heavy-loaded. I 
> plan 
>  to follow this schema :
>  
>  (clients)   - router- internet (all traffic but :80)
>  - transproxy - squid load balancer  - squid proxy 1
>  - squid proxy 2
>  - ...
>  
>  We use Celeron - and what i call heavy-loaded is 1500-2000 simultaneous 
>  modem connexions (average) and 3000 simultaneous modem connexions (top 
>  load).
>  
>  Has somebody already tried so a config ? What i would like is to have a 
>  feed-back about transproxy 1.4 (or another version) behaviour when it's 
>  heavy-loaded.
I had transproxy running on a quite slow box (p100) for 30 clients,
but tproxy caused quite some load if the proxy it was caching to was
down...

I never tried it with that many connections though.

BTW: i guess you'll configure your router to send :80 traffic to the
tproxy box?

squid has a transproxy too, maybe it's better to do load balancing
some other way, and let squid transproxy (read the squid faq for info
about squid transproxieing)

I don't think transproxy will handle such a load quite well, but you
can try and find out :)
-- 
,---.
> Name:   Alson van der Meulen  <
> Personal:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]   <
> School:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]<
`---'
Where's the GUI on this thing?
-




Re: Advice needed : transproxy

2001-04-05 Thread Alson van der Meulen

On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 04:19:38PM +0200, Francis 'Dexter' Gois wrote:
> 
>  Hi,
>  
>  I intend to set up a transparent proxying system here. We have a lot of 
>  traffic, so the server receiving the requests shall be heavy-loaded. I 
> plan 
>  to follow this schema :
>  
>  (clients)   - router- internet (all traffic but :80)
>  - transproxy - squid load balancer  - squid proxy 1
>  - squid proxy 2
>  - ...
>  
>  We use Celeron - and what i call heavy-loaded is 1500-2000 simultaneous 
>  modem connexions (average) and 3000 simultaneous modem connexions (top 
>  load).
>  
>  Has somebody already tried so a config ? What i would like is to have a 
>  feed-back about transproxy 1.4 (or another version) behaviour when it's 
>  heavy-loaded.
I had transproxy running on a quite slow box (p100) for 30 clients,
but tproxy caused quite some load if the proxy it was caching to was
down...

I never tried it with that many connections though.

BTW: i guess you'll configure your router to send :80 traffic to the
tproxy box?

squid has a transproxy too, maybe it's better to do load balancing
some other way, and let squid transproxy (read the squid faq for info
about squid transproxieing)

I don't think transproxy will handle such a load quite well, but you
can try and find out :)
-- 
,---.
> Name:   Alson van der Meulen  <
> Personal:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]   <
> School:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]<
`---'
Where's the GUI on this thing?
-


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