Hi Zack,
I didn't got the response properly it seems.Can you please clarify.
Thanks,
-R

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Raj Ganguly <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi All,
> I am attaching the configuration below and somewhat it looks to be
> working.But not clear as how the backend's are selected.I am having to
> ipaddress ending with even and odd numbers but still it gets routed to the
> same backend.
>
> Like for example 10.146.163.72 and 10.146.176.189 both got routed to
> 10.146.163.30. I was expecting 10.146.176.189 may be will take the second
> backend  10.146.175.136.Seems my understanding is not clear.Please
> help.Also
> is it possible to have infinite TTL value and what would be its impact ?
>
> I have given below the configuration I am following.
>
> User        "daemon"
> Group       "daemon"
> #Daemon 0
> #LogFacility -
> LogLevel 2
> ListenHTTP
>             Address 10.146.163.30
>             Port    80
>
>            Service
>                BackEnd
>                    Address 10.146.163.30
>                    Port    81
>
>                End
>                 BackEnd
>
>                    Address 10.146.175.136
>                    Port    82
>                End
>                Session
>                Type    IP
>                TTL   300
>                End
>
> Thanks,
> -R
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 1:41 AM, Zack Steinkamp <
> [email protected]
> > wrote:
>
> > To load balance between your two BackEnds, you need to put both BackEnd
> > blocks within the same Service block, and remove the second Service
> block.
> >
> > -zs
> >
> >
> >
> > Raj Ganguly wrote:
> >
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> From: Raj Ganguly<[email protected]>
> >> Date: Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 8:24 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [Pound Mailing List] Source ip-Hashing method in load
> >> balancing.
> >> To: [email protected]
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks for the info.Is it possible to keep the TTL value as infinite.I
> >> mean
> >> the load balancing need to be done only on basis of Client IP I don't
> want
> >> any dependency with TTL value.
> >>
> >> Secondly what is the logic for ip-hasing here as I tried to send request
> >> through different ip addresses like 10.146.163.72 and 10.146.161.143 but
> >> both of them go routed through same Backend (10.146.163.30). Expected
> >> result
> >> was it should be routed through different backend.
> >>
> >> I have given below the configuration.Any help would be very much
> >> appreciated.
> >>
> >>
> >> User        "daemon"
> >> Group       "daemon"
> >> #Daemon 0
> >> #LogFacility -
> >> LogLevel 2
> >> ListenHTTP
> >>             Address 10.146.163.31
> >>             Port    80
> >>
> >>             Service
> >>                 BackEnd
> >>                     Address 10.146.163.30
> >>                     Port    81
> >>                 End
> >>
> >>                 Session
> >>                 Type    IP
> >>                 TTL   300
> >>                 End
> >>             End
> >>
> >>             Service
> >>                 BackEnd
> >>                     Address 10.146.175.136
> >>                     Port    82
> >>                 End
> >>
> >>                 Session
> >>                 Type    IP
> >>                 TTL    300
> >>                 End
> >>             End
> >>
> >>         End
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> -R
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Albert<[email protected]>  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Yes, out of the "Session" types is IP.  This will hash an IP into a
> >>> specific backend for the however long the TTL (time to live) is setup
> for
> >>> the session.  Here's a sample (it goes within Service definition
> block):
> >>>
> >>> #ip-binding for session for 5 minutes
> >>> Session
> >>>       Type    IP
> >>>       TTL     300
> >>> End
> >>>
> >>> Raj Ganguly wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Hi All,
> >>>> Is it possible to have source ip-hashing method for load balancing in
> >>>> pound
> >>>> load balancer server.
> >>>> My requirement is to a VIP with four instances of listening port.When
> a
> >>>> request comes from a client (different ip-addresses is possible) it
> >>>> should
> >>>> be routed to any one of the instance. Even for subsequent requests
> from
> >>>> the
> >>>> same client it should be propagated to the same instance listening
> port.
> >>>> If I am not clear let me know.
> >>>> Thanks in advance.
> >>>> -R
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> To unsubscribe send an email with subject unsubscribe to
> [email protected]
> >>>> .
> >>>> Please contact [email protected] for questions.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> --
> >>> To unsubscribe send an email with subject unsubscribe to
> [email protected].
> >>> Please contact [email protected] for questions.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> To unsubscribe send an email with subject unsubscribe to [email protected]
> .
> >> Please contact [email protected] for questions.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe send an email with subject unsubscribe to [email protected].
> > Please contact [email protected] for questions.
> >
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe send an email with subject unsubscribe to [email protected].
> Please contact [email protected] for questions.
>


--
To unsubscribe send an email with subject unsubscribe to [email protected].
Please contact [email protected] for questions.

Reply via email to