On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Iain Morris wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 3:44 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 1:36 AM, David Brian Chait
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 4:40 AM, Tim Dunphy
>> >> wrote:
>> >> however for my purpose open and free HAProxy r
I'm surprised to see so many choosing HAProxy over LVS, which seems fairly
integrated into Red Hat's offerings, with full documentation and rpms in
CentOS and RHN. I've set up LVS before for an internal java application and
it seemed straightforward after understanding arptables, etc. Is HAProxy
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 1:36 AM, David Brian Chait wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 4:40 AM, Tim Dunphy wrote:
>> however for my purpose open and free HAProxy remains best choice!!
>
>> +1 for HAProxy; excellent piece of software.
>
> It really depends on your needs, if you are building a produc
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 4:40 AM, Tim Dunphy wrote:
> however for my purpose open and free HAProxy remains best choice!!
> +1 for HAProxy; excellent piece of software.
It really depends on your needs, if you are building a production ops
environment then the last thing that you would want woul
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 4:40 AM, Tim Dunphy wrote:
> however for my purpose open and free HAProxy remains best choice!!
+1 for HAProxy; excellent piece of software.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
an interesting choice for low cost hardware load balancing appliances
is coyote point
http://www.coyotepoint.com/products/?gclid=CI6ri9jQu6cCFQbc4Aodmi1V4Q
however for my purpose open and free HAProxy remains best choice!!
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Charles Polisher wrote:
> m.r...@5-cent.
m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> A warning: round robin can be problematical.
Amen. Consider what happens with round-robin DNS when one host
stops working. Round-robin DNS will hand out the address of the
failed host just as often as it did when it was all working.
Some clients (applications) will atte
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Todd wrote:
> Brian,
> Thanks for all of the great words here. I appreciate the detail in your
> reply.
>>
>> OK, so what's good? For my requirements, HAProxy is excellent. It
>> handled sticky sessions well, performs monitoring of each host, allows
>> dynamic ad
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:25 AM, wrote:
> James Nguyen wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Todd wrote:
>>> Brian,
>>> Thanks for all of the great words here. I appreciate the detail in your
>>> reply.
OK, so what's good? For my requirements, HAProxy is excellent. It
>
>> if th
On 3/4/2011 1:18 PM, James Nguyen wrote:
>
> You want two boxes that run both haproxy + keepalived. This way you
> get the load balancing (HAProxy) plus the high availability
> (Keepalived) using a shared virtual IP for your two boxes. You can do
> maintenance on either one while traffic still re
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 9:18 PM, James Nguyen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Todd wrote:
>> Brian,
>> Thanks for all of the great words here. I appreciate the detail in your
>> reply.
>>>
>>> OK, so what's good? For my requirements, HAProxy is excellent. It
>>> handled sticky sessions
James Nguyen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Todd wrote:
>> Brian,
>> Thanks for all of the great words here. I appreciate the detail in your
>> reply.
>>>
>>> OK, so what's good? For my requirements, HAProxy is excellent. It
> if they think the solution requires a lot of CPU. Memory
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Todd wrote:
> Brian,
> Thanks for all of the great words here. I appreciate the detail in your
> reply.
>>
>> OK, so what's good? For my requirements, HAProxy is excellent. It
>> handled sticky sessions well, performs monitoring of each host, allows
>> dynamic add
Brian,
Thanks for all of the great words here. I appreciate the detail in your
reply.
OK, so what's good? For my requirements, HAProxy is excellent. It
> handled sticky sessions well, performs monitoring of each host, allows
> dynamic adding/removing of servers, as well as maintenance modes.
>
also I forgot to mention for heartbeat I use keepalived
http://www.keepalived.org/
I found hearbeat a little difficult to implement but keepalived by
comparison is a breeze to setup. Forget about multiple A records.
That's a naive approach and entirely unnecessary. As other's have
pointed out ju
>OK, so what's good? For my requirements, HAProxy is excellent. It
> handled sticky sessions well, performs monitoring of each host, allows
> dynamic adding/removing of servers, as well as maintenance modes.
> It's very easy to install and configure. I'm using is as the backend
> to apache that
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Todd wrote:
> Hi All,
> Can anyone help me hash out how best to load balance a website that is
> getting considerable traffic? In the past I only have experience with BigIP
> where you have a load balancing device that keeps track and send traffic to
> the best ser
aurfal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2011, at 3:43 PM, Todd wrote:
>>
>> Can anyone help me hash out how best to load balance a website that
>> is getting considerable traffic? In the past I only have experience
>> with BigIP where you have a load balancing device that keeps track
>> and send tr
I've used round-robin DNS with good success, but I added some additional
tweaks using Heartbeat to manage the actual addresses. A typical case
is where you have two systems that will be used to offer a service.
Each machine has it's own IP address, but in addition there are a pair
of IPs for
On 3/3/11 7:56 PM, Sean Hart wrote:
>
Hi Sean,
Can you explain as I may be planning this for a site.
So if I have 2 identical servers, each with there own IP, how will
one
of them going down cause issues?
I'm assuming multiple A records for the same host
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 7:25 PM, Ryan Ordway wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2011, at 4:12 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> Round robin DNS would balance load, but will cause problems if one of
>>> them goes down.
>>
>> Hi Sean,
>>
>> Can you explain as I may be planning this for a site.
>>
>> So if I have
>>> Hi Sean,
>>>
>>> Can you explain as I may be planning this for a site.
>>>
>>> So if I have 2 identical servers, each with there own IP, how will
>>> one
>>> of them going down cause issues?
>>>
>>> I'm assuming multiple A records for the same host will be handled
>>> fine
>>> by the clien
> http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=relayd&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=OpenBSD+Current&arch=i386&format=html
I wouldn't be surprised if that what was in part driving those low
cost appliance load balancers.
Cool find, a definite book mark.
- aurf
__
- Original Message -
| Hi All,
|
| Can anyone help me hash out how best to load balance a website that is
| getting considerable traffic? In the past I only have experience with
| BigIP
| where you have a load balancing device that keeps track and send
| traffic to
| the best server possib
> Can anyone help me hash out how best to load balance a website that is
> getting considerable traffic? In the past I only have experience with
> BigIP where you have a load balancing device that keeps track and send
> traffic to the best server possible at the time. This was a proprietary
> sy
On Mar 3, 2011, at 4:25 PM, Ryan Ordway wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2011, at 4:12 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> Round robin DNS would balance load, but will cause problems if one
>>> of
>>> them goes down.
>>
>> Hi Sean,
>>
>> Can you explain as I may be planning this for a site.
>>
>> So if I hav
On Mar 3, 2011, at 4:24 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 03/03/11 4:12 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Can you explain as I may be planning this for a site.
>>
>> So if I have 2 identical servers, each with there own IP, how will
>> one
>> of them going down cause issues?
>>
>> I'm assuming multi
On Mar 3, 2011, at 4:12 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Round robin DNS would balance load, but will cause problems if one of
>> them goes down.
>
> Hi Sean,
>
> Can you explain as I may be planning this for a site.
>
> So if I have 2 identical servers, each with there own IP, how will one
On 03/03/11 4:12 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote:
> Can you explain as I may be planning this for a site.
>
> So if I have 2 identical servers, each with there own IP, how will one
> of them going down cause issues?
>
> I'm assuming multiple A records for the same host will be handled fine
> by the c
On Mar 3, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Sean Hart wrote:
> IPVS or LVS can work as a really simple/free solution:
> http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/software/ipvs.html
This was a very cool link.
I see that if in mid stream a server goes down while one is on it,
problems could arise as it won't be seamles
> Round robin DNS would balance load, but will cause problems if one of
> them goes down.
Hi Sean,
Can you explain as I may be planning this for a site.
So if I have 2 identical servers, each with there own IP, how will one
of them going down cause issues?
I'm assuming multiple A records for
On 3/3/11 3:51 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2011, at 3:43 PM, Todd wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Can anyone help me hash out how best to load balance a website that
>> is getting considerable traffic? In the past I only have experience
>> with BigIP where you have a load balancing
On Mar 3, 2011, at 3:43 PM, Todd wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Can anyone help me hash out how best to load balance a website that
> is getting considerable traffic? In the past I only have experience
> with BigIP where you have a load balancing device that keeps track
> and send traffic to the best
33 matches
Mail list logo
