Load balancing really belongs at the network layer.
depends on your needs
IBM released free load-balancing software for linux and windows about
1997. My former employer's integration group (about 3 people) got a
fully redundant implementation running (on 4 pcs) in about 4 months.
ack
The
[ I had given up this thread but since I started it ... ]
Apart from minor details I agree with this comment anyway.
On Mon, 2006-07-08 at 13:48 +0200, Klaus Wagner wrote:
snip
on Cisco gear (and others) within about 6 months. I'm sure the price
for proprietary hardware has dropped
I'm trying to figure out which impl of the the
LB cluster set makes the most sense and would appreciate
the feedback.
Basically, I see 2 different methods:
1. Members in all cluster sets which have the same or
lower set numbers are checked
2. Only members is a specific set number
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 10:08 -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'm trying to figure out which impl of the the
LB cluster set makes the most sense and would appreciate
the feedback.
snip
Comments?
Are you implementing load balancing/clustering in Apache HTTP Server ?
Why ?
--
--gh
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
In other words, lets assume members a, b and c are in
set 0 and d, e and f are in set 1 and g, h and i are in
set 2. We check a, b and c and they are not usable, so
we now start checking set 1. Should we re-check the
members in set 0
On Mon, July 31, 2006 4:29 pm, Guy Hulbert wrote:
Are you implementing load balancing/clustering in Apache HTTP Server ?
It was implemented quite a while ago.
Why ?
Because it's useful?
Regards,
Graham
--
On Jul 31, 2006, at 10:51 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF EITO wrote:
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
In other words, lets assume members a, b and c are in
set 0 and d, e and f are in set 1 and g, h and i are in
set 2. We check a, b and c and they are not usable, so
we now
On Jul 31, 2006, at 10:29 AM, Guy Hulbert wrote:
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 10:08 -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'm trying to figure out which impl of the the
LB cluster set makes the most sense and would appreciate
the feedback.
snip
Comments?
Are you implementing load balancing/clustering in
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 11:18 -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Why ?
People want it.
Thought so :-(
--
--gh
Guy Hulbert wrote:
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 11:18 -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Why ?
People want it.
Thought so :-(
Why :-( ??
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 16:54 +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
Why ?
Because it's useful?
Nope.
Load balancing really belongs at the network layer.
IBM released free load-balancing software for linux and windows about
1997. My former employer's integration group (about 3 people) got a
fully
On Mon, July 31, 2006 5:32 pm, Guy Hulbert wrote:
People want it.
Thought so :-(
Why the :-(...?
httpd tries to deliver what people will find useful, and load balancing is
a very useful part of a multi tier webserver architecture.
Regards,
Graham
--
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 17:42 +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
On Mon, July 31, 2006 5:32 pm, Guy Hulbert wrote:
People want it.
Thought so :-(
Why the :-(...?
httpd tries to deliver what people will find useful, and load balancing is
a very useful part of a multi tier webserver
On Mon, July 31, 2006 5:42 pm, Guy Hulbert wrote:
Nope.
Load balancing really belongs at the network layer.
I disagree. Load balancing should happen at the layer most capable of
making the most effective balancing decisions.
At the network layer, your metrics are pretty much volume of data
Graham Leggett wrote:
On Mon, July 31, 2006 5:32 pm, Guy Hulbert wrote:
People want it.
Thought so :-(
Why the :-(...?
httpd tries to deliver what people will find useful, and load balancing is
a very useful part of a multi tier webserver architecture.
Still not sure why
Guy Hulbert wrote:
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 16:54 +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
Why ?
Because it's useful?
Nope.
Load balancing really belongs at the network layer.
IBM released free load-balancing software for linux and windows about
1997. My former employer's integration
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'm trying to figure out which impl of the the
LB cluster set makes the most sense and would appreciate
the feedback.
Basically, I see 2 different methods:
1. Members in all cluster sets which have the same or
lower set numbers are checked
2. Only members is a
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 12:04 -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Nope.
Load balancing really belongs at the network layer.
snip
But, I suppose, if people want it ...
People want to simplify things.
The simple solution is to buy a bigger piece of hardware or outsource
the problem to the
On Mon, July 31, 2006 6:16 pm, Guy Hulbert wrote:
At the network layer, your metrics are pretty much volume of data or
Nope.
Routers can look at anything in the packets which is not encrypted.
They can also measure server response (by packet stats) directly or via
SNMP. There are all
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 12:22:03PM -0400, Guy Hulbert wrote:
The simple solution is to buy a bigger piece of hardware or outsource
the problem to the relevent experts.
Trying to do meaningful load-balancing within an application will not be
simple. At the router it is simple. All the
On Mon, July 31, 2006 6:22 pm, Guy Hulbert wrote:
The real danger, I see, is that you try to become all things to all
people when there does not seem to be resources to solve problems which
are very specific to the core application.
Apache httpd is capable not only of switching things off,
Guy Hulbert wrote:
However, you may not be able to wait until the linux router project
picks this up (but it might be worth looking to see what is
available).
Most of the load-balancing we are discussing on this list is not for
directly customer facing applications. These are proxies
Graham.
I already accept that this seems to fait-accomplis. So I am just
arguing for entertainment purposes.
If the solution is a p2p one then it might be somewhat interesting.
Otherwise, it just seems (to me) to be re-inventing the wheel ...
potentially very badly.
Adding
I didn't read this very carefully.
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 18:26 +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
I'm sure they can. This doesn't make them the right solution for all
cases.
In a multi tier architecture, you already have front end servers
implementing URL strategies, common logging, all sorts of
My only interest in this is you are putting all the additional
complexity into the Apache server.
Considering the very common usage of Apache being used as
a reverse proxy and the need for URL-specific forwarding,
adding a cluster-like ability to Apache is the obvious
next step.
Will it
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 18:31 +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
I get the sense that you would rather the developers scratch your itch
Their itch is not a problem for me ... and it isn't something I would
necessarily use apache for ... though for a small to medium scale setup
it might be very useful.
On Mon, July 31, 2006 6:39 pm, Guy Hulbert wrote:
I already accept that this seems to fait-accomplis. So I am just
arguing for entertainment purposes.
Which in turn means you're just wasting people's time.
Regards,
Graham
--
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 12:50 -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
My only interest in this is you are putting all the additional
complexity into the Apache server.
Considering the very common usage of Apache being used as
a reverse proxy and the need for URL-specific forwarding,
adding a
Guy Hulbert wrote:
Absolutely :-). I have no intention of writing any code for perchild if
someone else (undoubtedly far more qualified than I) happens to want to
do it.
After looking at the code from subversion and having thought a little
more about 'perchild' I can see a few
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 17:30 +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
Either way, the more options and the more flexibility, the better.
This is not true. There is always a limit. The difficult part is to
know when you've reached it, of course.
Also, it is a design choice. For example, perl (TMOWTDI)
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 19:00 +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
On Mon, July 31, 2006 6:39 pm, Guy Hulbert wrote:
I already accept that this seems to fait-accomplis. So I am just
arguing for entertainment purposes.
Which in turn means you're just wasting people's time.
It's your choice
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 13:05 -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
One reason for a generic scoreboard would be to help make
perchild easier, since we could store the passed fd's in this
location alleviating some of the current problems.
Thanks.
I've seen all the traffic on the scoreboard and this is
I've seen all the traffic on the scoreboard and this is very useful
context ...
Also, I am using a similar scoreboard mechanism to collect lots of per
worker stats without the extendedstatus overhead.
--
Brian Akins
Chief Operations Engineer
Turner Digital Media Technologies
On Mon, July 31, 2006 6:43 pm, Guy Hulbert wrote:
This seems reasonable. Given paragraph 2 (URL strategies etc) Not for
the reasons I've omitted (and responded to separately). However, I
still don't think this will scale the way router-based solutions can
(already :-).
Users of
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 13:21 -0400, Brian Akins wrote:
I've seen all the traffic on the scoreboard and this is very useful
context ...
Also, I am using a similar scoreboard mechanism to collect lots of per
worker stats without the extendedstatus overhead.
I've been following discussion
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 19:34 +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
On Mon, July 31, 2006 6:43 pm, Guy Hulbert wrote:
This seems reasonable. Given paragraph 2 (URL strategies etc) Not for
the reasons I've omitted (and responded to separately). However, I
still don't think this will scale the way
Guy Hulbert wrote:
That's the ultimate case, after all :-)
Not necessarily. Google's answer is to throw tons of hardware at stuff.
Which is great if you have unlimited space, power, and cooling. Some
other sites do some rather interesting things with a relatively small
number of servers
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 19:34 +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
Users of mod_backhand (for httpd v1.3) would disagree, it's a similar
Greenspun:
http://philip.greenspun.com/scratch/scaling.adp
Asks the right question:
How are load balancers actually built?
and suggests: zeus, mod_backhand,
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 13:54 -0400, Brian Akins wrote:
Guy Hulbert wrote:
That's the ultimate case, after all :-)
Not necessarily. Google's answer is to throw tons of hardware at
stuff.
The point of contention was scalability ... from a human point of view
it is really annoying to have to
On 7/31/06, Guy Hulbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 13:54 -0400, Brian Akins wrote:
Guy Hulbert wrote:
That's the ultimate case, after all :-)
Not necessarily. Google's answer is to throw tons of hardware at
stuff.
The point of contention was scalability ... from a
Guy Hulbert wrote:
The point of contention was scalability ... from a human point of view
it is really annoying to have to solve a problem twice but from the
business pov, outgrowing your load balancer might only be a good thing.
Yes. But most load balancer can only do layer 7 load
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'm trying to figure out which impl of the the
LB cluster set makes the most sense and would appreciate
the feedback.
Basically, I see 2 different methods:
1. Members in all cluster sets which have the same or
lower set numbers are checked
2. Only members is a
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 14:02 -0400, Garrett Rooney wrote:
On 7/31/06, Guy Hulbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 13:54 -0400, Brian Akins wrote:
Guy Hulbert wrote:
That's the ultimate case, after all :-)
Not necessarily. Google's answer is to throw tons of hardware
My experience: some organisations have a network group, that is able to
understand application communication behaviour and do a very good job in
making most of these features available via there load balancer
appliances and then benefit from their central administration, GUIs etc.
On the
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 20:15 +0200, Rainer Jung wrote:
So in principle most can be done on both sides, but often it's the
experience of the people, that decides on where to actually build the
solution.
Yup.
I did both solutions successfully and even had companies move from on
to
the
FWIW, this seems much more likely:
http://www.ultramonkey.org/about.shtml
In particular:
http://www.ultramonkey.org/3/installation-debian.sarge.html
On Mon, 2006-31-07 at 14:29 -0400, Guy Hulbert wrote:
It seems that linux router is the wrong name. Here is the correct
project:
46 matches
Mail list logo
