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 too
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 th
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
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 co
>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 sa
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
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' ???
Insta
On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 19:58, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> Well there's the confusing part. You had said:
>
> I even use it on Netfilter firewalls without any trouble (without
> the LVS support).
>
> It's the 'without the LVS support' that caught my eye.
Yes, you can use keepalive without LVS (j
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 06:46:13PM +0200, Markus Oswald wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 16:41, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 06:38:44PM +0200, S?bastien Lefebvre wrote:
> > > >
> > > You might want to use keepalived which includes a vrrp
> > > implementation. I'm running it on t
On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 16:41, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 06:38:44PM +0200, S?bastien Lefebvre wrote:
> > >
> > You might want to use keepalived which includes a vrrp
> > implementation. I'm running it on the clusters I set up :
> > http://keepalived.sourceforge.net/ I even use
On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 06:38:44PM +0200, S?bastien Lefebvre wrote:
> >
> You might want to use keepalived which includes a vrrp
> implementation. I'm running it on the clusters I set up :
> http://keepalived.sourceforge.net/ I even use it on Netfilter
> firewalls without any trouble (without the
Has anybody played with vrrpd for creating a failover pair?
I have a quite a low load, but would like to be able to handle a failure
cleanly, so a pair of machines would do fine. The only other issue I have
is a lack of external IP space, can you get vrrpd to do it's keep alive
thing via a subi
On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 17:44, Jason Lim wrote:
> Strangely enough, you might find FreeBSD (or one of the BSDs) working
> better as the forwarded than Linux, due to it's better ability to handle
> many multiple concurrent connections. YMMV of course.
Is the balancer-functionality build into the Fre
>
> No, I don't think this would work. You'll need a third box which will do
> the balancing (well, maybe you could get it to work but it's not
> intended this way).
>
> As I said before, the balancer doesn't have to be a fast machine -
> almost anything you can find will be sufficient.
>
Strange
On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 04:46:45PM +0200, Markus Oswald wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 20:52, Shri Shrikumar wrote:
>
> > 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
On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 20:52, Shri Shrikumar wrote:
> 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 ?
No, I don't think t
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 ma
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
> > > serv
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 men
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 fou
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 s
Shri Shrikumar wrote:
>
> 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 lit
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
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 storag
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
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 everyth
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/
>
>
27 matches
Mail list logo
