On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Matt Black <matt.bl...@jbadigital.com> wrote: > Dear list, > > Does anyone have an opinion on the concept of putting a Riak cluster behind > a load balancer?
It has been done before. there are various results when searching "riak haproxy" in your favourite search engine. > > We wish to be able to automatically add/remove nodes from the cluster, so > adding an extra layer at the front is desirable. We should also benefit for > incoming requests behind shared across all nodes. > > Can anyone see any drawbacks / problems with doing this? If your load balancer falls over, what do you do then? Highly available may go down the pan. Have more than one would be the obvious answer. What do you do when you want to transparently add more machines to your load balancer? Maybe it might be better to have a list of riak nodes stored in a separate registry (I'm thinking something like zookeeper), that your application servers can then poll for changes (or even subscribe to changes) to the list of servers. Sam > > Thanks > Matt > > > _______________________________________________ > riak-users mailing list > riak-users@lists.basho.com > http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com > -- Samuel Elliott s...@lenary.co.uk http://lenary.co.uk/ +44 (0)7891 993 664 _______________________________________________ riak-users mailing list riak-users@lists.basho.com http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
