On Jun 26, 2010, at 4:58 PM, Adrian Padilla wrote: > gotcha, > > so on the config i have a question on the setup, this is what i think i > should have
Looks like you're using one of the servers as your front-end. That makes me wonder - what's the point having Pound running on only a single machine? It'll be a single point of failure, regardless of how many webservers you have. However, if capacity is your concern, and you can run all the websites on all the servers, why not dedicate one as Pound front-end and use the other two for the applications? Chances are two servers will provide all the performance and redundancy you'll need. Also, having only two back-ends makes it easier to replicate data between them if necessary. You could even run a local mysqld on each, which replicates to the other - but two-way replication only works in pairs, so with three servers you'd have to run a mysql cluster - which is a whole different story. /Eirik > # Main listening ports > ListenHTTP > Address 192.168.3.120 > Port 80 > End > Service > BackEnd > Address 192.168.3.120 > Port 8080 > Priority 5 > End > Address 192.168.3.118 > Port 80 > Priority 4 > End > Address 192.168.3.119 > Port 80 > Priority 3 > End > Address 192.168.3.102 > Port 80 > Priority 2 > End > End > > i have pound on a machine that is also a webserver, so that way i can utilize > apache on that same machine that is why i have one of those set to port 8080, > will this work > > > > > Dave Steinberg wrote: >> On 6/26/2010 10:29 AM, Adrian Padilla wrote: >>> basically all my sites are pretty much business sites and basic php >>> websites, and some shopping carts, >>> >>> here is what i have, >>> >>> i have all three ubuntu servers running apache 2.0 >>> >>> all running php, perl, pretty much LAMP servers, >>> >>> would i just duplicate all the same data across all the servers, and >>> have pound deligate what servers is being used >> >> Eirik has a point that sometimes it is better to separate your applications. >> I am in the camp that unless you have some specific reason to split things >> up, reliability & redundancy trump most other goals, so I say use all 3 >> servers and split things up with pound. >> >> Assuming you don't have any sort of shared storage (i.e. NFS, etc), you >> would need to copy all the application code across the servers. You do need >> a method to share session data (maybe a DB or something) if you intend to >> allow sessions to migrate between backends. >> >> Basically if you're going to use 3 servers in a round-robin format, you need >> to configure the servers so that at any moment any one can serve any >> request. Every server must have access to the sessions and any other code >> or data the other servers have. The advantage here over using >> sticky-sessions is that problems with one backend become obvious quickly. >> With sticky sessions, if you want to figure out why a certain backend is >> doing something, you first have to either setup pound to isolate the backend >> or figure out some other way of hitting it directly. With round-robin, you >> just hit reload in your browser a few times. >> >> Regards, > > -- > 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.
