to
round-robin
requests or something, but I don't know how to set that up.
From: Medi Montaseri [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 20:57:19 -0800 (PST)
To: Anand R [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: load balancing on apache by IP CHAINING
, but I don't know how to set that up.
From: Medi Montaseri [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 20:57:19 -0800 (PST)
To: Anand R [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: load balancing on apache by IP CHAINING
I'm confused'IP chainging' as the name says
Webserver.
Please let the Ring know this,
Thanks in advance,
Regards,
Anand
- Original Message -
From: Derek Jones
To: Hemant Singh ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Derek G Jones
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 7:29 PM
Subject: RE: load balancing on apache
Hi
Hi Hemant Singh, A round-robin dns server would be easiest. There's no true load balancing this way though. Regards, John Hoffman - Original Message - From: Hemant Singh Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 1:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: load balancing on apache Hi All I am
On Fri, 14 Dec 2001, Hemant Singh wrote:
Pls suggest how can i achieve this on apache.
mod_backhand may be able to help you out here with proper pass it on
type load balancing. If you use it with wackamole you might not even need
the front machine.
http://www.backhand.org/
Haven't used it
Hemant Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi All
I am planning to host an application and its size is going to be big one , so
expect the concurrent number of connection s to be around 2200.To combat the
same , want to perform load sharing on 3-4 servers.So the ide is to put one
machine
-- Hemant Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi All
I am planning to host an application and its size is going to be big one
, so expect the concurrent number of connection s to be around 2200.To
combat the same , want to perform load sharing on 3-4 servers.So the ide
is to put one machine on
I am planning to host an application and its size is going to be big one ,
so expect the concurrent number of connection s to be around 2200.
To combat the same , want to perform load sharing on 3-4 servers.
If you really expect 2200 concurrent connections, you should buy dedicated
-De: Hemant Singh
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Envoyé: vendredi 14 décembre
2001 09:51À: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Objet: load
balancing on apache
Hi All
I am planning to host an
application and its size is going to be big one , so expect the concurrent
number of connection s to be around
Hi
all,
You
can do load balancing using ipchains as well.
Can't
remember the program name offhand, but if I have time
I'll
look it up and let the list know.
Only
works if your servers are Linux of course.
Kind
regards
Derek.
Perrin Harkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am planning to host an application and its size is going to be big one ,
so expect the concurrent number of connection s to be around 2200.
To combat the same , want to perform load sharing on 3-4 servers.
If you really expect 2200 concurrent
You should also check out Coyote Point's Equalizer ... this a
hardware/software solution that worked well for ValueClick up to about 70
million requests per day. It's basically a FreeBSD box with a custom
dynamic natd ... supports hot-swap redundancy with two of 'em installed
... and a _lot_
Well,
Linux Virtual Server is using ipchains (on the load balancer),
and you can use any kind of OS
on your real servers (those running your
application), since it's only
TCP/IP routing and/or forwarding.
Thanks
Frederic, I had only ever hand-cranked this kind
of
setup manually
Aside from the fact I _really_ wouldn't expect that manny actual, live
TCP connections at one time...
Nor would I, although we did see huge numbers of open connections during
peak times at eToys. Mostly to the image serving machines though.
I _really_ hate so-called dedicated boxes. They're
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can make it work with homegrown solutions, but I've found the dedicated
load-balancing tools (at least Big/IP) to be effective and fairly easy to
work with, even with large loads, failover requirements, and more exotic
stuff like sticky sessions. This is one area
On Fri, 14 Dec 2001, Perrin Harkins wrote:
I _really_ hate so-called dedicated boxes. They're closed, nasty,
inflexible and often don't work in _your_ situation. Doing smart
session-based redirection can be hard with these boxes.
You can make it work with homegrown solutions, but I've
At least one person MUST mention Backhand!
www.backhand.org
I'm working on a project right now that is expected to grow to 100+
servers in the next 12 months. In past projects I've worked on, handling
of the log files becomes non-trivial at numbers far below that, so I
built the new system
Jeff Beard wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2001, Perrin Harkins wrote:
I _really_ hate so-called dedicated boxes. They're closed, nasty,
inflexible and often don't work in _your_ situation. Doing smart
session-based redirection can be hard with these boxes.
You can make it work with
I think you also have to specify weather your web applications are
state-less or not. If stateless, then you can just use DNS Round Robin
technique or lbnamed (Load Balancing Name Server) to achieve this load
balancing or high availability.
If your apps are statefull as in ASP, Cold Fusion,
? If not,
then what criteria do you want to use?
- Original Message -
From: Steven Lembark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 3:15 AM
Subject: Re: load balancing on apache
-- Hemant Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi All
I am planning to host an application
14, 2001 7:29
PM
Subject: RE: load balancing on
apache
Hi
all,
You
can do load balancing using ipchains as well.
Can't remember the program name offhand, but if I have
time
I'll
look it up and let the list know.
Only
works if your servers are Linux
21 matches
Mail list logo
