On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 8:45 PM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
> I've since discovered that our application server doesn't need sessions to
> be bound to a particular httpd front-end. So 3 & 4 are not actually required
> (although SSL offloading would be convenient simply to reduce the number of
> IP a
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 18:45, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
> That leaves 5. How flexible is pfSense's dead host detection? Instead of a
> ping check can we substitute an arbitrary http check (at a minimum to check
> for a 200 response, but ideally we want to perform a regex check to find
> specific c
On 21/08/09 7:55 PM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
Ah, thanks Chris. Is this something planned for the near future (6-9
months)? We aren't in a hurry, and any alternative solution is going to
cost us >$5,000 for some appliance (in HA redundant mode). I'd rather
fund a good cause (like you guys) with
On 21/08/09 12:24 PM, Chris Buechler wrote:
Bonus points for being able
> to also perform SSL offloading. Our application server uses HTTP cookies to
> maintain sessions, so it is important that the load balancer be able to
> maintain connection to a specific web server for the life of the coo
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
> Is anyone using pfSense to perform load balancing (and failover) for two or
> more web servers in a redundant configuration?
Yes, lots, but in more generic setups.
> Bonus points for being able
> to also perform SSL offloading. Our app
Is anyone using pfSense to perform load balancing (and failover) for two or
more web servers in a redundant configuration? Bonus points for being able to
also perform SSL offloading. Our application server uses HTTP cookies to
maintain sessions, so it is important that the load balancer be able
