I third that. Over my five years in working with server farms and clusters, hardware based solutions are much easier and requires almost no user intervention. With only two or three servers, you will see that hardware solutions may cost more compared to the cost of software based solutions. But once it is setup and configured correctly, it is like a router or a really intelligent switch. It just sits there and gets the job done. Plus not to mention the problems with software, like more overhead on the server, software corruption, etc...
I have used Radware WSD (http://www.radware.com/content/products/wsd.htm) which is RISC based and Cisco Content Service Switch. Both work great. Jacob At 10:21 AM 2/6/2002 -0500, you wrote: >I would agree with Dave, your better off going with a hardware based LB and >not even using clustercats. We for example run 2 seperate clusters, one set >of servers for pictures and one set for CFapps. Plus you can do error >trapping with most LBs' so that a 404 will get directed to another server. >There is much more expandability going hardware based and all the app >servers run the same load regardless. > >Steve > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Dave Watts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "CF-Server" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 9:38 AM >Subject: RE: Server Cluster Newbie Questions > > > > > 1.) do server clusters typically employ a special hardware > > > request dispatcher/router that manages traffic to the cluster? > > > > Hardware-based clustering solutions do. You can use software-based > > clustering (ClusterCATS + round-robin DNS), but in my (admittedly somewhat > > limited) experience, hardware-based solutions work better. There are >several > > vendors who provide hardware solutions for this, such as Cisco and >Foundry. > > One of the neat things about these solutions is that they can also act as > > SSL managers and accelerators, and can be configured so that they handle >SSL > > themselves, and use regular HTTP to talk to the individual server >clusters, > > so that you don't have to install the SSL cert on each box, and you > > generally get better performance - and if necessary, you can use "sticky" > > sessions in this way. > > > > > 2.) if the cluster is intended to distribute the cf > > > application processing load, but not the webserver load > > > for asset requests (like gifs and jpegs) - are there easy > > > ways to manage the difference by file type? by folder? > > > > In most configurations I've seen, there's no differentiation between the >two > > - all assets are loaded on each server, and each request is load-balanced > > whether it's a CF request or a simple file request. However, you might > > configure servers for just these assets, and write your code to fetch >files > > from these servers instead of your CF application servers. > > > > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > > http://www.figleaf.com/ > > voice: (202) 797-5496 > > fax: (202) 797-5444 > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body or visit the list page at www.houseoffusion.com
