fir wrote:
Hey Folks, is it possible to setup Haproxy 2 node active-active cluster
behind Azure Load Balancer i.e. (Azure LoadBalancer -> 2
Haproxy(ACTIVE-ACTIVE) -> WEBSERVERS). any suggestions?
Hey Folks, is it possible to setup Haproxy 2 node active-active cluster
behind Azure Load Balancer i.e. (Azure LoadBalancer -> 2
Haproxy(ACTIVE-ACTIVE) -> WEBSERVERS). any suggestions?
On 17/02/2015 01:11 μμ, Mariusz Gronczewski wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 12:41:06 +0100, Klavs Klavsen k...@vsen.dk wrote:
As I understand anycast and ECMP (and I only know guys who use it and
know what they are doing ;) - it needs to be two different routes (ie.
routers) that are active
our setup(1 DC):
* active-active ECMP
* 4 loadbalancers + bird OSPF
* 2 routers + OSPF
* IPs are on loopback interface, added and removed when haproxy service
starts/stops
* OSPF distributes routes to these IPs to routers
* routers route by source IP so same IP always lands on same
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 12:41:06 +0100, Klavs Klavsen k...@vsen.dk wrote:
As I understand anycast and ECMP (and I only know guys who use it and
know what they are doing ;) - it needs to be two different routes (ie.
routers) that are active/active.. ie. multiple location.. but I guess
one could
Lukas Tribus wrote on 02/16/2015 01:55 PM:
[CUT]
You use ECMP for load-balancing between different servers in a
single PoP/DC and anycast to route the request to the nearest PoP/DC.
As I understand wikipedia - it is discouraged to use ECMP for
loadbalancing.. Load balancing by per-packet
❦ 16 février 2015 14:31 +0100, Lukas Tribus luky...@hotmail.com :
As I understand wikipedia - it is discouraged to use ECMP for
loadbalancing.. Load balancing by per-packet multipath routing is
generally deprecated due to the impact of rapidly changing latency,
packet reordering..
Nobody
Isn't that used more as a multiple datacenter active/active setup thing?
being in the routing part.. and not LAN side of things.
that's the only places I've seen that used.. it's very cool though :)
As I understand anycast and ECMP (and I only know guys who use it and
know what
❦ 16 février 2015 14:07 +0100, Klavs Klavsen k...@vsen.dk :
You use ECMP for load-balancing between different servers in a
single PoP/DC and anycast to route the request to the nearest PoP/DC.
As I understand wikipedia - it is discouraged to use ECMP for
loadbalancing.. Load balancing by
As I understand wikipedia - it is discouraged to use ECMP for
loadbalancing.. Load balancing by per-packet multipath routing is
generally deprecated due to the impact of rapidly changing latency,
packet reordering..
Nobody does per-packet multipathing anymore, in fact, when you use
ECMP for
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 16, Mathieu Sergent wrote:
Now i use two HAProxy active/passive with keepalived, which make the load
balancing on web servers.
I would know if it's possible to use two HAProxy in active/active mode ? I
know keepalived can't managed it, because it uses the protocol VRRP. I made
Openbsd carp
El 16-02-2015 7:16, Mathieu Sergent mathieu.sergent...@gmail.com
escribió:
Hi,
Now i use two HAProxy active/passive with keepalived, which make the load
balancing on web servers.
I would know if it's possible to use two HAProxy in active/active mode ? I
know keepalived can't
Thanks for your reply.
I really want to have two active/active, keepalived can't deal with it.
Furthermore, i try to not use a load balancing with dns.
Regards,
Mathieu
2015-02-16 11:31 GMT+01:00 Jarno Huuskonen jarno.huusko...@uef.fi:
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 16, Mathieu Sergent wrote:
Now i use
...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Mathieu Sergent
mathieu.sergent...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for your reply.
I really want to have two active/active, keepalived can't deal with it.
Furthermore, i try to not use a load balancing with dns.
Regards,
Mathieu
Hi,
Now i use two HAProxy active/passive with keepalived, which make the load
balancing on web servers.
I would know if it's possible to use two HAProxy in active/active mode ? I
know keepalived can't managed it, because it uses the protocol VRRP. I made
researches and it seems to be impossible
to that ip. (I normally
setup the ip on loopback interface - but take care that it does not
disturb keepalived :)
so in reality someone has to be master.. and in normal active/active
cluster setups - there is indeed a master - and the cluster then
reelects a new master, whenever the master
In each proposition, there is a single master (DNS, LVS...), which
load-balance on two HAProxy.
Me, I try to choose a solution with two master, which will be my two HAProxy.
Maybe it's impossible and i dream ^^, but this is what I need.
CDN's work with anycast and ECMP, that will solve
with anycast and ECMP, that will solve those issue
(and introduce new problems), but you need to understand them
very very well until you can think to deploy it
Isn't that used more as a multiple datacenter active/active setup thing?
being in the routing part.. and not LAN side of things.
that's
It's a point in time dump and restore of the in flight packets.
Can't dump the details and in flight content of a TCP session if
the host is already dead.
So either this will work only for manual switchovers (but not for
sudden hardware/software failure; also at this point TCP connection
On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:00:37 +0100 in
dub107-w49d4acd0d650efad62fd57ed...@phx.gbl, Lukas Tribus Lukas
Tribus luky...@hotmail.com wrote:
It's a point in time dump and restore of the in flight packets.
Can't dump the details and in flight content of a TCP session if
the host is already
Hi Jerome,
Do you have any good reason to setup an active/active cluster?
crossed VIPs hosted by VRRP is recommended for simple active/active
setup then as you mentioned, playing with DNS RR.
conntrack is a bad idea with haproxy ;)
If you expect a massive traffic, it's better to use a first
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 07:04:02 +0100 in
caodhi7opnvfifb3uwzsr0awdesmg7uz0-f+zu4syr+peh1q...@mail.gmail.com,
Baptiste Baptiste bed...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Jerome,
Do you have any good reason to setup an active/active cluster?
cheap hosting with no control on their backbone and network load
On Mar 19, 2013, at 9:52 AM, Jérôme Benoit wrote:
cheap hosting with no control on their backbone and network load on one
box reach the max.
So what happens when you lose a system? If you are doing active/active and
either/both systems are above 50% utilized, you're going to have an issue
the max.
So what happens when you lose a system? If you are doing active/active and
either/both systems are above 50% utilized, you're going to have an issue
when a failure occurs.
I'll do back to a degraded state ... (that will hopefully not last too
much), that really all I can do without
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 07:04:02 +0100 in
caodhi7opnvfifb3uwzsr0awdesmg7uz0-f+zu4syr+peh1q...@mail.gmail.com,
Baptiste Baptiste bed...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
conntrack is a bad idea with haproxy ;)
Could you elaborate ?
Does HAProxy already fill the connection table of the underlying OS
so
conntrackd permit to also share TCP states between boxes that will
also run iptables
With conntrackd-syncing you just allow the packet to pass the iptables
barrier; but the session will still be dropped by the OS because the
TCP stack doesn't know the socket, and so does not the application.
Hello,
I'm starting to think about a way to setup an active/active HAProxy.
HAProxy can share as of 1.5 its connection table, which is really a
appreciated feature :)
I've thought of different way to implement such a setup :
* RR DNS on two VRRP interface (BP is really shared between boxes
27 matches
Mail list logo
