Server0 and Server1 have the same ip and same port. Is it a mistake
writing the mail ?
Regards
2012/10/25 Werner Hauptfleisch <[email protected]>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I have been working with Zen Load Balancer (V.2, latest stable release)
> and have been trying to configure a simple server farm to allow for the use
> of an active-passive cluster environment. According to the administration
> guide offered on-line, 'Priority' is the suggested algorithm to use in my
> server farm, quoted:
>
> "Priority – connections to the highest priority available. Balance all
> connections to the same highest priority server. If this server is down,
> the connections switch to the next highest server. With this algorithm you
> can build an Active-Passive cluster service with several real servers."
>
> Based on my readings and logical thinking, I have also disabled the
> "Enable client ip address persistence through memory" setting in the
> profile options.
>
> My test configuration is simple:
> 192.168.0.10 - the Load Balancer virtual IP accepting connections on port
> 80
> 192.168.0.11 - Active Web Server 1 accepting connections on port 80
> 192.168.0.12 - Passive Web Server 2 accepting connections on port 80
> (should -only be accessed when server 1 fails)
>
> The configuration used for my test server farm:
> - Profile: TCP
> - Server 0: 192.168.0.11, Port 80, Weight: 0, Priority: 1
> - Server 1: 192.168.0.11, Port 80, Weight: 0, Priority: 2
>
> When running some tests on the configuration I do not get the desired
> results. I would expect all connections to be sent to one of the servers,
> and only when the active server stops listing will connections be sent to
> server 2. Instead, I can see connections to both servers, very similar to
> 'round-robin' or 'weighted' algorithms?
>
> Initially I also created a server farm using the HTTP profile, but I note
> that the 'Priority' algorithm is not available, hence my resultant use of
> the TCP profile for my test farm.
>
> I have also configured and attempted to test the same setup using V.3 of
> Zen Load Balancer, but the results are the same. (I also note some bugs in
> V.3 which is expected as this is still a release candidate anyway :) )
>
> Does someone perhaps have some pointers that I can follow in getting my
> server farm to work as described above, or am I attempting to achieve
> something that Zen Load Balancer does not support?
>
> Many thanks for your responses and help.
>
> W ;)
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
> Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
> Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_sfd2d_oct
> _______________________________________________
> Zenloadbalancer-support mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/zenloadbalancer-support
>
>
--
Load balancer distribution - Open Source Project
http://www.zenloadbalancer.com
Distribution list (subscribe): [email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_sfd2d_oct
_______________________________________________
Zenloadbalancer-support mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/zenloadbalancer-support
