On Nov 25, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Nigel Kersten wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Luke Kanies <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Nov 25, 2009, at 12:38 PM, Markus Roberts wrote: >> >>> One possibility we're overlooking here (I'm not making any claims >>> apart from the fact that it's a distinct solution) is to bind a run >>> to a server on the initial exchange (e.g. do a redirect from the >>> generic "puppetmaster pool" URL to an equivalent but more specific >>> "the particular puppetmaster who's handling you for this run" URL). >>> Session based web services sometimes use this technique. >> >> >> I'm amenable but I've no idea how common/supportable this is. Is >> this >> often how load balancers work? I'd expect that if someone wants to >> throw up an F5 in front of their masters that the F5 would be the >> only >> route through to the masters, and I'd (somewhat naïvely) expect there >> not to be another route to the masters. > > That's certainly been the case in some load balancing environments > I've worked with, but others (and this is how we're planning to deal > with Puppet) will load balance on one port but still allow another > route directly to individual backends on another port.
How, on the server, do we differentiate between the two addresses or whatever? How would one normally tell the server which name or IP it should provide clients? -- The remarkable thing about Shakespeare is that he really is very good, in spite of all the people who say he is very good. -- Robert Graves --------------------------------------------------------------------- Luke Kanies | http://reductivelabs.com | http://madstop.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.
