Re: Load balancers

2003-01-14 Thread Igor Sysoev
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, John Siracusa wrote: Thanks for all the info, and please feel free to send me more, especially if there's some gem of a software load balancer out there somewhere... :) mod_accel can do primitive load balancing (via DNS) and primitive fault tolerance. It connect to next

Load balancers

2003-01-13 Thread John Siracusa
(This may seem off topic for this list, but I'll try to bring it around before the end of the message :) We've been struggling with load balancers for a while now. My requirements are pretty simple. I have a handful of plain and mod_perl apache servers, some of which are identical and a few

Re: Load balancers

2003-01-13 Thread John Siracusa
On 1/13/03 11:12 AM, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote: On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, John Siracusa wrote: So...suggestions? How are other people handling load balancing? With hardware load balancers. :-) Sure, rub it in ;) You forgot to include the information about number of servers, requests per second

Re: Load balancers

2003-01-13 Thread Perrin Harkins
John Siracusa wrote: But meanwhile, we're still open to alternatives. Surprisingly, there don't seem to be many (software) options. (A hardware load balancer is not an option at his time, but I'll also take any suggestions in that area :) I've always used hardware ones. I believe big/ip does

Re: Load balancers

2003-01-13 Thread Nick Tonkin
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, John Siracusa wrote: But meanwhile, we're still open to alternatives. Surprisingly, there don't seem to be many (software) options. (A hardware load balancer is not an option at his time, but I'll also take any suggestions in that area :) My experience in this area led

Re: Load balancers

2003-01-13 Thread Steven Adams
On Monday 13 January 2003 08:03 am, John Siracusa wrote: (We're running various versions of Linux on our servers, if that makes any difference.) So...suggestions? How are other people handling load balancing? -John Hey John, Take a look at the LVS project, www.foundrynetworks.com and

Re: Load balancers

2003-01-13 Thread Andy Osborne
John Siracusa wrote: [snip] But meanwhile, we're still open to alternatives. Surprisingly, there don't seem to be many (software) options. (A hardware load balancer is not an option at his time, but I'll also take any suggestions in that area :) [snip] So...suggestions? How are other

Re: Load balancers

2003-01-13 Thread Larry Leszczynski
The Load Balancing section of this doc might help: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/misc/rewriteguide.html Just straight apache + mod_rewrite could be the simple solution you seek. The Proxy Throughput Round-Robin example shows how to add a script to do mapping as well - could work for your

RE: Load balancers

2003-01-13 Thread Jesse Erlbaum
Hi John -- But meanwhile, we're still open to alternatives. Surprisingly, there don't seem to be many (software) options. (A hardware load balancer is not an option at his time, but I'll also take any suggestions in that area :) Why is hardware not an option? Cost? If so, I'd take a

Re: Load balancers

2003-01-13 Thread Leo Lapworth
Hi John, I use wackamole (http://www.backhand.org/wackamole/) on my (2) front end servers with 6 IP addresses doing Round Robin (RR) DNS. This is suffichent for loadbalencing the light (HTML / IMAGE only) front end. I had a issue with this once, it got the IP address allocation confused, but

Re: Load balancers

2003-01-13 Thread James G Smith
Perrin Harkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Siracusa wrote: But meanwhile, we're still open to alternatives. Surprisingly, there don't seem to be many (software) options. (A hardware load balancer is not an option at his time, but I'll also take any suggestions in that area :) I've always

Re: Load balancers

2003-01-13 Thread Francesc Guasch Ortiz
John Siracusa wrote: We've been struggling with load balancers for a while now. My requirements are pretty simple. I have a handful of plain and mod_perl apache servers, So...suggestions? How are other people handling load balancing? I have tested pen. It's easy to set up and works fine so

Re: Load balancers

2003-01-13 Thread John Siracusa
That's for all the info so far. To answer some questions, hardware is a cost issue right now. It's somewhat scary that $3,200 was a reasonable price several years ago, but I suppose it could be worse. We will investigate further. The mod_rewrite solutions lack dead server detection, and that's

Re: Load balancers

2003-01-13 Thread Perrin Harkins
John Siracusa wrote: The mod_rewrite solutions lack dead server detection, and that's something I'd rather not try to roll on my own, especially after seeing how well (or not, actually) existing software solutions do. But I've added it to the list. ... It's kind of disappointing to hear that

Re: Load balancers

2003-01-13 Thread John Siracusa
On 1/13/03 1:04 PM, Perrin Harkins wrote: John Siracusa wrote: The mod_rewrite solutions lack dead server detection, and that's something I'd rather not try to roll on my own, especially after seeing how well (or not, actually) existing software solutions do. But I've added it to the list.

RE: Load balancers

2003-01-13 Thread Jesse Erlbaum
Hi John -- That's for all the info so far. To answer some questions, hardware is a cost issue right now. It's somewhat scary that $3,200 was a reasonable price several years ago, but I suppose it could be worse. We will investigate further. Actually, $3200 was a STEAL! Cisco's Local

Re: Load balancers

2003-01-13 Thread Perrin Harkins
John Siracusa wrote: But in a full-fledged mod_perl solution, I could back out gracefully and retry another server if I happened to initially choose a dead server before my dead server detection code caught it. That sounds cool, but how important is it really? I'm not sure any of these

Re: Load balancers

2003-01-13 Thread John Siracusa
On 1/13/03 1:28 PM, Perrin Harkins wrote: John Siracusa wrote: But in a full-fledged mod_perl solution, I could back out gracefully and retry another server if I happened to initially choose a dead server before my dead server detection code caught it. That sounds cool, but how important is

RE: Load balancers

2003-01-13 Thread Stephen Reppucci
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Jesse Erlbaum wrote: That's for all the info so far. To answer some questions, hardware is a cost issue right now. It's somewhat scary that $3,200 was a reasonable price several years ago, but I suppose it could be worse. We will investigate further. Actually,

Re: Load balancers

2003-01-13 Thread Dzuy Nguyen
I've developed an embedded (Linux) load balancer solution. It's small form factor, runs on 8MB flash minimum, no hard drive, no fan so no wories about hard drive failure. It is LVS NAT (L4) based with configurable monitoring service. It load balances any port you want. I've deployed it to load

RE: Load balancers

2003-01-13 Thread Nick Tonkin
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Jesse Erlbaum wrote: Hi John -- That's for all the info so far. To answer some questions, hardware is a cost issue right now. It's somewhat scary that $3,200 was a reasonable price several years ago, but I suppose it could be worse. We will investigate

Re: Load balancers

2003-01-13 Thread Stas Bekman
John Siracusa wrote: (This may seem off topic for this list, but I'll try to bring it around before the end of the message :) We've been struggling with load balancers for a while now. It seems that most experts hang at [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's also preferrable that the hw solutions