--- Charles Sprickman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, email builder wrote: > > > Technically, this should be feasible with just plain DNS load balancing, > but > > in our current medium/low budget scenario, we don't have the rackspace to > > have numerous boxes that are dedicated ONLY to SA/clam, thus our desire > is to > > figure out a way to *WEIGHT* our spamd balancing. > > I've been very happy with DNS load balancing. The frontend mxer runs > tinydns on a local zone "blah.local.domain.com", and an instance of > dnscache with the round-robin patch is pointed to in resolv.conf. While I > thought that the load balancing would be a little "rough", looking at the > stats I sent 17011 messages through #1, 17025 through #2, and 17016 > through #3 yesterday. I can also weight this by having multiple records, > ie: > > spamd1 gets three identical entries in tinydns > spamd2 gets three identical entries in tinydns > spamd3 gets three identical entries in tinydns > spamd4 gets one entry Ooooo, some good bits! We have always been plenty satisfied with Bind, but maybe this is the straw that broke the camel's back.... unless anyone knows if Bind will behave the same way if we have multiple entries for one host?? > that will leave spamd4 seeing about 1/3 the load of the other boxes. It's > not "clustering", but when using the "-d" flag: > > -d host > Connect to spamd server on given host. If host resolves to multi- > ple addresses, then spamc will fail-over to the other addresses, if > the first one cannot be connected to. > > it should hit another box if one goes down. Or some easy scripting could > remove the appropriate entries from tinydns if one machine stops > responding. > > Speaking of low budget, we have three SA boxes, each of which has a 2GHz > AMD processor, 1GB RAM. The first two cost about $550, the last one about > $425. They are pretty crappy boxes with no RAID, etc., but it's cheaper > for me to keep one more box than needed in the equation than to build out > a few "uber spamd" boxes. They are in mini-atx cases, so they barely take > up more room than an equivalent number of 1U boxes. I spawn 30 spamd > children on each. I have been very happy with the performance so far. > > > I'm surprised there's not a lot of folks out there who have done this > > before....? > > Maybe they're all cheap like me. :) Awesome! Thanks for the advice!!! __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
