Hey, In my Chef recipes for AppCloud (Engine Yard's PaaS Product) I actually configured haproxy to listen on 8098 on the application instances and redirect to all the riak nodes in a roundrobin fashion. (Had httpchk for /ping to ensure the node is up)
In my own testing with basho_bench this seemed to work, I'm unsure of what drawbacks there would be because I could not find any other then HTTP was slower then PBC. I did find find that Protobuffers did not roundrobin correctly with haproxy using tcp mode... darn :( So if we're just speaking HTTP could totally use HAProxy or a Hardware Load balancer to spread out the load. Scott -- Scott M. Likens Sent with Sparrow (http://www.sparrowmailapp.com/?sig) On Friday, May 27, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Sean Cribbs wrote: > This is one thing I desperately want to refactor. The Ruby client still > contains some things that reflect my earlier, less astute understanding of > how a Riak client should behave and doesn't include obvious things like > retrying requests (possibly on other nodes), conflict resolution strategies, > and mutators. > > In the past, I have recommended that users put a lightweight load-balancer > (e.g. haproxy, pound) between their application and Riak, and simply have the > app connect to the locally-running instance of the LB. I realize this is not > a great solution, but it also avoids a little NIH for now. > > Sean Cribbs <s...@basho.com (mailto:s...@basho.com)> > Developer Advocate > Basho Technologies, Inc. > http://basho.com/ > > On May 27, 2011, at 3:20 PM, Keith Bennett wrote: > > > Hi, all. If I have several riak servers on a cluster, and want to > > distribute load fairly evenly, and am using the Ruby Riak client, what is > > the best way to balance load? > > > > With the HTTP interface, I can randomize the choice of host for a request. > > How would I do the same with the ruby client? Would I create a Riak::Client > > for each host, and then just randomize the selection of those for a given > > call? Do the clients contain any state that would make this a bad idea? Or > > is there a better way to do this? > > > > Thanks, > > Keith > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > riak-users mailing list > > riak-users@lists.basho.com (mailto:riak-users@lists.basho.com) > > http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com > > > _______________________________________________ > riak-users mailing list > riak-users@lists.basho.com (mailto:riak-users@lists.basho.com) > http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com > > !DSPAM:4ddffdaf202681804284693!
_______________________________________________ riak-users mailing list riak-users@lists.basho.com http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
