On Sun, 2003-09-21 at 15:05, Thomas Lamy wrote:
> You're wrong. round robin dns isn't HA, isn't load balancing, it's just
> request spreading. You can't control how many (DNS-)clients cache one of the
> RR IP's, therefore you won't get even load on yo
"lb-named"
Mario.
Why not use (keepalived?) with round robin dns then?. You get load
balancing, redundancy, and you don't need unnecessary additionnal
servers or kernel patches or whatever. Even with a lot of servers, it
should scale pretty well. Works too with servers
of test to know if the server
> was up and running correctly, I remeber it was called
> something like "lb-named"
> >
> >Mario.
> >
> Why not use (keepalived?) with round robin dns then?. You get load
> balancing, redundancy, and you don't need unnec
nding them connections, I once saw a DNS server implemented in Perl which worked in a round robin fashion but making some kind of test to know if the server was up and running correctly, I remeber it was called something like "lb-named"
Mario.
Why not use (keepalived?) with round robin dns
>Why not using 'roundrobin' ???
>
>Install a couple of Web-Servers, give each Server an IP and
>then setup for each Server a A-Record on your DNS-Server
>pointing to the same hostname.
The problem with round robin is that when one server fails over it keeps sending them
connections, I once sa
Michelle Konzack wrote:
>
> Am 2003-09-17 01:49:31, schrieb Shri Shrikumar:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I am looking to implement an Apache cluster with Load Balancing and
> >failover and after going through several options, the only
> one that is
> >not too complex and
Am 2003-09-17 01:49:31, schrieb Shri Shrikumar:
>Hi,
>
>I am looking to implement an Apache cluster with Load Balancing and
>failover and after going through several options, the only one that is
>not too complex and does everything that I need seems to be pen
Why not us
On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 19:58, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> Well there's the confusing part. You had said:
>
> I even use it on Netfilter firewalls without any trouble (without
> the LVS support).
>
> It's the 'without the LVS support' that caught my eye.
Yes, you can use keepalive without LVS (j
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 06:46:13PM +0200, Markus Oswald wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 16:41, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 06:38:44PM +0200, S?bastien Lefebvre wrote:
> > > >
> > > You might want to use keepalived which includes a vrrp
> > > implementation. I'm running it on t
On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 16:41, Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 06:38:44PM +0200, S?bastien Lefebvre wrote:
> > >
> > You might want to use keepalived which includes a vrrp
> > implementation. I'm running it on the clusters I set up :
> > http://keepalived.sourceforge.net/ I even use
On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 06:38:44PM +0200, S?bastien Lefebvre wrote:
> >
> You might want to use keepalived which includes a vrrp
> implementation. I'm running it on the clusters I set up :
> http://keepalived.sourceforge.net/ I even use it on Netfilter
> firewalls without any trouble (without the
Has anybody played with vrrpd for creating a failover pair?
I have a quite a low load, but would like to be able to handle a failure
cleanly, so a pair of machines would do fine. The only other issue I have
is a lack of external IP space, can you get vrrpd to do it's keep alive
thing via a subi
On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 17:44, Jason Lim wrote:
> Strangely enough, you might find FreeBSD (or one of the BSDs) working
> better as the forwarded than Linux, due to it's better ability to handle
> many multiple concurrent connections. YMMV of course.
Is the balancer-functionality build into the Fre
>
> No, I don't think this would work. You'll need a third box which will do
> the balancing (well, maybe you could get it to work but it's not
> intended this way).
>
> As I said before, the balancer doesn't have to be a fast machine -
> almost anything you can find will be sufficient.
>
Strange
On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 04:46:45PM +0200, Markus Oswald wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 20:52, Shri Shrikumar wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the response. Let me just clarify. If I have two boxes, I can
> > configure both of them to be webservers and one of them to be the lvs
> > node. I dont need a third
On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 20:52, Shri Shrikumar wrote:
> Thanks for the response. Let me just clarify. If I have two boxes, I can
> configure both of them to be webservers and one of them to be the lvs
> node. I dont need a third machine to be a dedicated node. Is this
> correct ?
No, I don't think t
On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 02:00:35PM +0100, Shri Shrikumar wrote:
> Looking at the documentation for LVS, it mentions that it needs two
> nodes, a primary node and a backup node which then feeds into n real
> servers.
>
We're using a single LVS server to balance things out to 4 webserver, 2
POP ma
Shri Shrikumar wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 18:46, Markus Oswald wrote:
> > On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 15:00, Shri Shrikumar wrote:
> >
> > > Looking at the documentation for LVS, it mentions that it
> needs two
> > > nodes, a primary node and a backup node which then feeds
> into n real
> > > serv
On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 18:46, Markus Oswald wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 15:00, Shri Shrikumar wrote:
>
> > Looking at the documentation for LVS, it mentions that it needs two
> > nodes, a primary node and a backup node which then feeds into n real
> > servers.
>
> Actually I never saw this men
On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 12:05, Joost Veldkamp wrote:
> You can also have a look at www.ultramonkey.org , deb packages
> avaialble. Simplifies the installation of LVS a lot.
> Recently, there was a article in Sysadmin mag. about clustering. There
> was an interesting part about openSSI, it can be fou
On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 15:00, Shri Shrikumar wrote:
> Looking at the documentation for LVS, it mentions that it needs two
> nodes, a primary node and a backup node which then feeds into n real
> servers.
Actually I never saw this mentioned in the documentation - I haven't
looked at it for quite s
not as hard to setup as you think - you need a little bit of
> > experience for planing your cluster setup, but the software
> installation
> > and configuration is probably the easier part.
> >
> > I installed/run multiple clusters, some with quite a lot of traffic
>
perience for planing your cluster setup, but the software installation
> and configuration is probably the easier part.
>
> I installed/run multiple clusters, some with quite a lot of traffic
> (well, that's what load-balancing is good for) some just needed the HA
> feature
On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 12:07, Javier Castillo Alcibar wrote:
> By the way, what filysystem do you recomend for these kind of
> clusters?? NFS?? Coda??
Depends on what you want to do - for instance:
Build a balanced server farm to handle a lot of traffic:
Just use a NFS server as centralized storag
By the way, what filysystem do you recomend for these kind of clusters?? NFS?? Coda??
-Mensaje original-
De: Joost Veldkamp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Enviado el: miércoles, 17 de septiembre de 2003 12:05
Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Asunto: Re: Apache clustering w/ load balancing and
On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 09:50, Markus Oswald wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 02:49, Shri Shrikumar wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am looking to implement an Apache cluster with Load Balancing and
> > failover and after going through several options, the only one that is
&
On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 02:49, Shri Shrikumar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am looking to implement an Apache cluster with Load Balancing and
> failover and after going through several options, the only one that is
> not too complex and does everything that I need seems to be pen
>
&g
Hi,
I am looking to implement an Apache cluster with Load Balancing and
failover and after going through several options, the only one that is
not too complex and does everything that I need seems to be pen
http://siag.nu/pen/
I am curious about other peoples experience with this / other
Greetings!
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 17:26:21 +0100 Andrew Miehs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 04:47:47PM +0100, Volker Tanger wrote:
> > For incoming the firewalls simply use DNS Round-Robin on the FW
> > members which have to be listed as primary/master servers for the
> > doma
Greetings!
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 17:26:21 +0100 Andrew Miehs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 04:47:47PM +0100, Volker Tanger wrote:
> > For incoming the firewalls simply use DNS Round-Robin on the FW
> > members which have to be listed as primary/master servers for the
> > doma
Hi, I read something like u might need if what u wont looks like this at
leas
Network 1 Internet conection 1
\Router/
Network 2 / \Internet conection 2
The real example goes little diferent but it is easy to change it that way i
foun
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 04:47:47PM +0100, Volker Tanger wrote:
> For incoming the firewalls simply use DNS Round-Robin on the FW members
> which have to be listed as primary/master servers for the domain in
> question. This way you are independent on network mechanics.
>
Hi Volker,
If you use rou
ecommend asking
> your provider for help. Providers can sometimes be a bit picky with
> offering customers BGP feeds,
Well, (expensive, proprietary) solutions like from Rainfinity offer that
without routing protocols. For outgoing they use the(ir) firewall
cluster's ability to do load b
Hi, I read something like u might need if what u wont looks like this at
leas
Network 1 Internet conection 1
\Router/
Network 2 / \Internet conection 2
The real example goes little diferent but it is easy to change it that way i
foun
Hi Danilo,
What are your servers doing? do they REALLY need that type of uptime?
Do you want loadbalancing, or failover?
Do you have one Internet provider or two?
If two, this will start getting more complicated. You will need to look
into using BGP. As you are asking this question, I assume tha
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 04:47:47PM +0100, Volker Tanger wrote:
> For incoming the firewalls simply use DNS Round-Robin on the FW members
> which have to be listed as primary/master servers for the domain in
> question. This way you are independent on network mechanics.
>
Hi Volker,
If you use rou
Hi,
sorry but I am still confused. Because the solutions and the docs that I
could read about load balance is to this type of problem:
_ server 1
/
internet --load balancer--<-- server 2
ecommend asking
> your provider for help. Providers can sometimes be a bit picky with
> offering customers BGP feeds,
Well, (expensive, proprietary) solutions like from Rainfinity offer that
without routing protocols. For outgoing they use the(ir) firewall
cluster's ability to do load b
Hi Danilo,
What are your servers doing? do they REALLY need that type of uptime?
Do you want loadbalancing, or failover?
Do you have one Internet provider or two?
If two, this will start getting more complicated. You will need to look
into using BGP. As you are asking this question, I assume tha
Hi,
sorry but I am still confused. Because the solutions and the docs that I
could read about load balance is to this type of problem:
_ server 1
/
internet --load balancer--<-- server 2
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 12:33, Eduard Ballester wrote:
> >>My question:
> >>do you know any software like Perdition but for FTP service?
> >
> > We use ftpproxy from suse, it's packaged for Debian so have a look. I'm
> > not
> > sure how like perdition it might be though.
>
> Do you know if ftp
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 12:33, Eduard Ballester wrote:
> >>My question:
> >>do you know any software like Perdition but for FTP service?
> >
> > We use ftpproxy from suse, it's packaged for Debian so have a look. I'm not
> > sure how like perdition it might be though.
>
> Do you know if ftpproxy
My question:
do you know any software like Perdition but for FTP service?
>
We use ftpproxy from suse, it's packaged for Debian so have a look. I'm not
sure how like perdition it might be though.
Do you know if ftpproxy can redirect connection per user?
Can I use LDAP accounts?
--
*
My question:
do you know any software like Perdition but for FTP service?
>
We use ftpproxy from suse, it's packaged for Debian so have a look. I'm not
sure how like perdition it might be though.
Do you know if ftpproxy can redirect connection per user?
Can I use LDAP accounts?
--
On Tuesday 11 March 2003 06:51, Eduard Ballester wrote:
> My question:
> do you know any software like Perdition but for FTP service?
We use ftpproxy from suse, it's packaged for Debian so have a look. I'm not
sure how like perdition it might be though.
--
Fraser Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tuesday 11 March 2003 06:51, Eduard Ballester wrote:
> My question:
> do you know any software like Perdition but for FTP service?
We use ftpproxy from suse, it's packaged for Debian so have a look. I'm not
sure how like perdition it might be though.
--
Fraser Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:51, Eduard Ballester wrote:
> > For load balancing create several POP and IMAP proxies with an IPVS load
> > balancer in front. Use Perdition on the POP and IMAP proxies to direct
> > the connection to the correct back-end server that has the mail.
>
&
Hello
For load balancing create several POP and IMAP proxies with an IPVS load
balancer in front. Use Perdition on the POP and IMAP proxies to direct the
connection to the correct back-end server that has the mail.
I had used Perdition+LDAP and it works fine!!!
My question:
do you know any
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:51, Eduard Ballester wrote:
> > For load balancing create several POP and IMAP proxies with an IPVS load
> > balancer in front. Use Perdition on the POP and IMAP proxies to direct
> > the connection to the correct back-end server that has the mail.
>
&
d if you want to realize load balancing between mail
> and webservers ? (Mail server should also include POP3/IMAP-Server).
For load balancing create several POP and IMAP proxies with an IPVS load
balancer in front. Use Perdition on the POP and IMAP proxies to direct the
connection to the corre
Hello
For load balancing create several POP and IMAP proxies with an IPVS load
balancer in front. Use Perdition on the POP and IMAP proxies to direct the
connection to the correct back-end server that has the mail.
I had used Perdition+LDAP and it works fine!!!
My question:
do you know any
d if you want to realize load balancing between mail
> and
> webservers ? (Mail server should also include POP3/IMAP-Server).
>
I haven't got much experience in load balancing POP or IMAP. The only
thing we do here is that we have multiple POP- and IMAP-proxies which
talk to one s
Depends on what you want to balance, just TCP/IP traffic, or a specific
service (mail/web/etc). For TCP/IP traffic, we use VRRP (Virtual
Redundant Router Protocol), which works fine.
What would you recommend if you want to realize load balancing between mail and
webservers ? (Mail server should
d if you want to realize load balancing between mail
> and webservers ? (Mail server should also include POP3/IMAP-Server).
For load balancing create several POP and IMAP proxies with an IPVS load
balancer in front. Use Perdition on the POP and IMAP proxies to direct the
connection to the corre
d if you want to realize load balancing between mail and
> webservers ? (Mail server should also include POP3/IMAP-Server).
>
I haven't got much experience in load balancing POP or IMAP. The only
thing we do here is that we have multiple POP- and IMAP-proxies which
talk to one server h
Depends on what you want to balance, just TCP/IP traffic, or a specific
service (mail/web/etc). For TCP/IP traffic, we use VRRP (Virtual
Redundant Router Protocol), which works fine.
What would you recommend if you want to realize load balancing between mail and
webservers ? (Mail server should
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 22:41, danilo lujambio wrote:
> Hi:
>
> what is the package or tool that you can recommended to make a load
> balancing between two internet outputs. I read docs about high
> availability servers, LVS and so on , but I am confused. Can someone
> orient t
Hi:
what is the package or tool that you can recommended to make a load
balancing between two internet outputs. I read docs about high
availability servers, LVS and so on , but I am confused. Can someone
orient to me ?
thanks
dl
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 22:41, danilo lujambio wrote:
> Hi:
>
> what is the package or tool that you can recommended to make a load
> balancing between two internet outputs. I read docs about high
> availability servers, LVS and so on , but I am confused. Can someone
> orient t
Hi:
what is the package or tool that you can recommended to make a load
balancing between two internet outputs. I read docs about high
availability servers, LVS and so on , but I am confused. Can someone
orient to me ?
thanks
dl
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
seful.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Craigsc [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 05 March 2002 09:02
> > To: Debian-Isp; Andrew Claassen
> > Subject: Load balancing web servers
> >
> >
> > Hi fellows
> >
> > I need to know
webserver2
wwwINA webserver3
Note that this is not "load balancing". It is not figured out by actual
load or capacity. It just does a "round robin" and is often called "load
sharing". Also note that outside DNS caches used for many lookups will
defeat the
ECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: Load balancing web servers
> you can use the dns records
>
> wwwINA10webserver1
> wwwINA20webserver2
> wwwINA30webserver3
>
> etc...
en"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 10:02 PM
Subject: Load balancing web servers
> Hi fellows
>
> I need to know if it is possible to do load
> balancing across two machines on Apache web
> server and if so what software I can use ?>
>
> ..Crai
-Isp; Andrew Claassen
> Subject: Load balancing web servers
>
>
> Hi fellows
>
> I need to know if it is possible to do load
> balancing across two machines on Apache web
> server and if so what software I can use ?>
>
> ..Craig
>
>
> --
> To UN
Hi fellows
I need to know if it is possible to do load
balancing across two machines on Apache web
server and if so what software I can use ?>
..Craig
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We're a qmail ISP, and we were using HORDE/IMP for our web mail...
It's very nice looking, but wouldn't handle well under load, (or
under limited bandwidth... horribly slow on a 56k modem). Since we
use the vpopmail virtual mail program from inter7.com, we thought
we'd try the SQWebMail that i
We're a qmail ISP, and we were using HORDE/IMP for our web mail...
It's very nice looking, but wouldn't handle well under load, (or
under limited bandwidth... horribly slow on a 56k modem). Since we
use the vpopmail virtual mail program from inter7.com, we thought
we'd try the SQWebMail that
I am currently running a box with around 3500 users and moved to use IMP.
Now we have slight problems with service during heavy usage time.
IMP doesnt let people in. I think it is database problem. To solve this I
though to put a link on a main page which redirects every other web-mail
request to
I am currently running a box with around 3500 users and moved to use IMP.
Now we have slight problems with service during heavy usage time.
IMP doesnt let people in. I think it is database problem. To solve this I
though to put a link on a main page which redirects every other web-mail
request t
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, Shao Zhang wrote:
> We are an isp here and we would like to set up two webservers
> that are completely tranparent(rsync daily).
>
> We will only be using one webserver to server all the pages, but
> if it goes down, we would like the second webserver
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, Shao Zhang wrote:
> We are an isp here and we would like to set up two webservers
> that are completely tranparent(rsync daily).
>
> We will only be using one webserver to server all the pages, but
> if it goes down, we would like the second webserver
- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Original message --
> Hi,
> This is not a really load balancing question, but similar sort
> of thing.
> We are an isp here and we would like to set up two webservers
> that are completely tranparent(rsync daily).
> We
(403) 232-1032
Fax: (403) 265-2843
-Original Message-
From: Shao Zhang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Shao
Zhang
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 7:30 PM
To: debian-isp@lists.debian.org
Subject: sort of a load balancing question
Hi,
This is not a really load balancing que
- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Original message --
> Hi,
> This is not a really load balancing question, but similar sort
> of thing.
> We are an isp here and we would like to set up two webservers
> that are completely tranparent(rsync daily).
>
(403) 232-1032
Fax: (403) 265-2843
-Original Message-
From: Shao Zhang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Shao
Zhang
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 7:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: sort of a load balancing question
Hi,
This is not a really load balancing question,
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 12:30:12 +1000
> > To: debian-isp@lists.debian.org
> > Subject: sort of a load balancing question
> > Resent-From: debian-isp@lists.debian.org
> > Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 12:26:59 +1000
> >
> > Hi,
> > This is not a really load bala
e used rsync for this.
>
> Regards,
> Robert Davidson.
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 12:30:12PM +1000, Shao Zhang wrote:
> > Hi,
> > This is not a really load balancing question, but similar sort
> > of thing.
> >
> > We are an isp here a
On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 12:30:12PM +1000, Shao Zhang wrote:
> Is there any programs out there that does this?
Take a look at:
http://www.linux-ha.org/
http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/
http://ultramonkey.sourceforge.net/
http://www.eddieware.org/
--
Luca Filipozzi
[dpkg] We are the apt.
Shao,
We are also a small ISP and do exactly that with one of our vital servers.
We used rsync for this.
Regards,
Robert Davidson.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 12:30:12PM +1000, Shao Zhang wrote:
> Hi,
> This is not a really load balancing question, but similar sort
>
Hi,
This is not a really load balancing question, but similar sort
of thing.
We are an isp here and we would like to set up two webservers
that are completely tranparent(rsync daily).
We will only be using one webserver to server all the pages, but
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 12:30:12 +1000
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: sort of a load balancing question
> > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 12:26:59 +1000
> >
> > Hi,
> > This is not a really load balancing question,
e used rsync for this.
>
> Regards,
> Robert Davidson.
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 12:30:12PM +1000, Shao Zhang wrote:
> > Hi,
> > This is not a really load balancing question, but similar sort
> > of thing.
> >
> > We are
On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 12:30:12PM +1000, Shao Zhang wrote:
> Is there any programs out there that does this?
Take a look at:
http://www.linux-ha.org/
http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/
http://ultramonkey.sourceforge.net/
http://www.eddieware.org/
--
Luca Filipozzi
[dpkg] We are the apt.
Shao,
We are also a small ISP and do exactly that with one of our vital servers.
We used rsync for this.
Regards,
Robert Davidson.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 12:30:12PM +1000, Shao Zhang wrote:
> Hi,
> This is not a really load balancing question, but similar sort
>
Hi,
This is not a really load balancing question, but similar sort
of thing.
We are an isp here and we would like to set up two webservers
that are completely tranparent(rsync daily).
We will only be using one webserver to server all the pages, but
86 matches
Mail list logo
