What I have is web servers and application servers. Both run apache, with web servers proxying to the application servers over a hardware load balancer. There is also a hardware load balancer in front of the web servers.
The application servers are using mod_jrun22 connectors which I modified. I basically added another parameter that I can use from within my apache conf file: JRunConfig RestrictProxyAddress x.x.x.x:51000 This restricts it to the ip and port for the instance. The code modification and complication was no picnic, but it shouldn't be hard to do for a seasoned C programmer. I'm sure my code still has bugs in it, but seems to run well so far. Russ > -----Original Message----- > From: Brad Wood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 11:56 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Targetting an instance > > Interesting... so let me get this straight: > > I could set up 5 servers. Each would a single instance of CF installed > and a web server. (Apache or IIS) I would bind each install of IIS or > whatever to the instance of CF on that machine but I would also add > those instances into a JRun cluster. Now I place a hardware > load-balancer out in front of the web servers. Now my load balancer is > running the entire show, but I still have shared sessions in the > background. > > Since you are using Apache, and I am using IIS, what changes did you > have to make to the connectors? > > The only think I can think of right off is what happens if an instance > goes down? I guess the load balancer would have to be smart enough to > know that > 1) The server is up and responding to ping > 2) AND web server is running (IIS) > 3) AND application server is running (CF) > > And if one of the above ceased to be true, it would stop handing that > server requests. My goal is to have fail-over at every level. > I know our Load Balancer does number one. Number 2 probably-- not sure > about number three. I guess if the heartbeat page was processed by CF > then that would be an indicator. > > I will have to fiddle with that. Of course, this approach would assume > that I NEVER wanted to have more than one instance per server. > > ~Brad > > -----Original Message----- > From: Russ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 9:13 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Targetting an instance > > I had to modify the mod_jrun22 apache connector in order to get this to > work. I am now able to have individual virtual sites bound to specific > instances of CF while still having session replication working. > > I spoke to someone from macromedia and he told me that this should > indeed be > possible and several large companies are doing this. He wasn't sure, > however, whether it would require a custom connector. I emailed him a > while > ago but haven't heard back. > > Russ > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Brad Wood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 7:29 PM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: RE: Targetting an instance > > > > If I do that can I still replicate sessions? > > Would the instances still be part of a cluster? > > > > Right now, if an instance is part of a cluster it does not even show > up > > in the web site configuration tool. Only the cluster shows up. This > > led me to believe you could not bind a site to an instance which was > > part of a cluster. > > > > ~Brad > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Russ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 5:12 PM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: RE: Targetting an instance > > > > You can have separate virtual sites, one for each instance, and have > > each > > instance provide the health check. Hardware LB will then rotate > between > > instances. > > > > RUss > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Brad Wood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 5:27 PM > > > To: CF-Talk > > > Subject: RE: Targetting an instance > > > > > > A simple health check that > > > works with the hardware loadbalancer that returns metrics data > should > > > work, > > > assuming your loadbalancer supports this. > > > > > > ==== > > > > > > Not from my understanding-- though I could be very wrong. > > > It is my understanding that if I have a group of servers running > IIS, > > > and a separate group of clustered servers running CF, then I have > load > > > balancing going on at two different levels. > > > The first level is between the user and IIS, and the second level is > > > between IIS and my CF Instances. > > > My Hardware load balancer only sits between the user and the servers > > > running IIS. Keep in mind CF might not even be installed on those > > > servers. > > > Now once IIS gets the request from the hardware load balancer, the > web > > > server connector uses my cluster algorithm (Let's say Round Robin) > to > > > choose an instance in the cluster (assuming it is not static content > > > being served). At this point the hardware load balancer is out of > > the > > > picture. It is also at this point that I want my balancing to be > > based > > > on things like CPU. > > > >From what people are telling me though, the IIS connectors aren't > > smart > > > enough to do that. > > > > > > ~Brad > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| ColdFusion MX7 and Flex 2 Build sales & marketing dashboard RIAâs for your business. Upgrade now http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2?sdid=RVJT Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:273814 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
