HI Emilio,
My apologies - you are correct. That section should rather read:
<SNIP>
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: 192.168.0.12, Port 80, Weight: 0, Priority: 2
<SNIP>
Thanks for noting that!
On 10/25/2012 04:54 PM, Emilio Campos wrote:
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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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
