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 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
>
> 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, 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
Hi Matias,
I'd suggest you have a look at mod_sqlinclude from where you can proceed
to build your own frontend (php+mysql).
I'm currently working on something that's supposed to be a frontend to
apache, exim, spamassassin and proftpd. It's still immature and far from
finished but I could send you
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
Thx, for the tip y will be working on it.
Cheers,
rak
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 11:39:45PM -0500, Rod Rodolico wrote:
> On a mail server with any kind of traffic, this directory should have some files in
> it most of
> the time. There should be a file with a -H at the end that matches the
We've a couple debian systems to patch for the new sshd problems.
On one of them that is monitored closely and patched quickly. The other is
patched less quickly.
The system that is patched less quickly claims to be up to date but nobody
remembers patching it. There are some wierd things about f
On Friday 19 September 2003 14:04, Dan MacNeil wrote:
> We've a couple debian systems to patch for the new sshd problems.
>
> On one of them that is monitored closely and patched quickly. The other is
> patched less quickly.
>
> The system that is patched less quickly claims to be up to date but no
9 matches
Mail list logo
