On 24 October 2012 17:59, Bill Moseley <mose...@hank.org> wrote:
> PerlBal (as in this old post:
> http://lists.danga.com/pipermail/perlbal/2005-November/000138.html ) can do
> this as well.
> I wonder about the topology.   We used to run with Perlbal (and heartbeat
> and IP failover) in front of a pool of web servers.   We now run with
> hardware load balancers in front of a pool of web servers.
> The load balancer does make it easy to adjust the pool -- as well as
> gracefully handle a web server dropping out of the pool.   I don't want to
> add yet another set of servers for an extra proxy layer.
> So, I'm currently thinking of running Nginx on each web server. (Keep-alive
> between the load balancer and Nginx, and no keep-alive between Nginx and
> Catalyst with maybe Starman.)

Um... how is adding nginx instead of perlbal not "adding yet another
set of servers"?

Perlbal does more than simple pooling and proxying too - it's very
useful indeed for rewriting urls and stuff like reproxying, etc that
h/ware load balancers don't support

> Anyone see why this might be a bad (or good) approach?

What features of nginx are you looking to use vs say perlbal - depends
on how you'd use it and what for, and how easily either would acheive
your goals easily - perlbal *could* have a short/shallower learning
curve, or nginix may be drop-in job that just works without any
customisation or special extensions


Aaron J Trevena, BSc Hons
LAMP System Integration, Development and Consulting

List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk
Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst
Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk/
Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/

Reply via email to