I see. With the 2 switches you mention I guess it would not be possible to set
the 2 lixux which have a single port NIC.Right?
________________________________
From: David Coulson <da...@davidcoulson.net>
To: Hermes Flying <flyingher...@yahoo.com>
Cc: "haproxy@formilux.org" <haproxy@formilux.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 8, 2012 3:41 PM
Subject: Re: HAProxy basic setup question
Yep - The systems we use in clustered environments typically have 4 or 6 NICs
for redundant front-end and back-end networks.
That's why I told you to pay someone to build it.
On 12/8/12 8:38 AM, Hermes Flying wrote:
Are you assuming multi-port NICs? Sorry if this is a trivial question but I am
an application programmer and lack your background.
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: David Coulson <da...@davidcoulson.net>
>To: Hermes Flying <flyingher...@yahoo.com>
>Cc: "haproxy@formilux.org" <haproxy@formilux.org>
>Sent: Saturday, December 8, 2012 3:36 PM
>Subject: Re: HAProxy basic setup question
>
>
>Well, since it's 2012 you use a switch instead of a hub. And as I described
>earlier you can take two switches and connect systems to both, reducing the
>risk of a hardware fault taking everything down. You use the bonding
>capability in Linux to make the two NIC ports appear as one logical interface
>in the OS.
>
>If you are so worried about building a massively
resilient system, you need to pay someone to build it
for you. In my experience, a poorly built 'redundant'
environment ends up with more downtime than a one with
multiple single points of failure.
>
>
>On 12/8/12 8:33 AM, Hermes Flying wrote:
>
>2 Linuxes connecting LBs over the same hub. Not sure what you mean by 2
>switches
>>Isn't it SPOF? If the hub breaks then no load balancing
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>> From: David Coulson <da...@davidcoulson.net>
>>To: Hermes Flying <flyingher...@yahoo.com>
>>Cc: "haproxy@formilux.org" <haproxy@formilux.org>
>>Sent: Saturday, December 8, 2012 3:31 PM
>>Subject: Re: HAProxy basic setup question
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On 12/8/12 8:30 AM, Hermes Flying wrote:
>>
>>So this would be e.g. Pacemaker?
Yes
>>
>>
>>Also such a setup is considered a SPOF right?
>>>
No - Two switches, right?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
