I don't speak "Azure", but if they have something that claims to be a
load balancer, then "sure", just have to deal with stickiness issues and
of course the fact that you're load balancing load balancers.
(you likely need Application Gateway)
On 07/12/2018 05:50 PM, musafir wrote:
Hey Folks, i
On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:00:37 +0100 in
, Lukas Tribus Lukas
Tribus wrote:
>
> > It's a point in time dump and restore of the in flight packets.
>
> Can't dump the details and in flight content of a TCP session if
> the host is already dead.
You're right. Its primary goal is system update withou
> It's a point in time dump and restore of the in flight packets.
Can't dump the details and in flight content of a TCP session if
the host is already dead.
So either this will work only for manual switchovers (but not for
sudden hardware/software failure; also at this point TCP connection
repai
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 20:03:14 +0100 in
, Lukas Tribus Lukas
Tribus wrote:
>
> > conntrackd permit to also share TCP states between boxes that will
> > also run iptables
>
> With conntrackd-syncing you just allow the packet to pass the iptables
> barrier; but the session will still be dropped by
> conntrackd permit to also share TCP states between boxes that will
> also run iptables
With conntrackd-syncing you just allow the packet to pass the iptables
barrier; but the session will still be dropped by the OS because the
TCP stack doesn't know the socket, and so does not the application.
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 07:04:02 +0100 in
,
Baptiste Baptiste wrote:
Hello,
> conntrack is a bad idea with haproxy ;)
Could you elaborate ?
Does HAProxy already fill the connection table of the underlying OS
so conntrackd is just not required ?
The connection tracking at the OS firewall level i
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 12:06:47 -0400 in
<2cf188ce-49a7-43cc-aa21-81cdc10cd...@davidcoulson.net>, David Coulson
David Coulson wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 19, 2013, at 9:52 AM, Jérôme Benoit wrote:
> >
> > cheap hosting with no control on their backbone and network load on one
> > box reach the max.
>
>
On Mar 19, 2013, at 9:52 AM, Jérôme Benoit wrote:
>
> cheap hosting with no control on their backbone and network load on one
> box reach the max.
So what happens when you lose a system? If you are doing active/active and
either/both systems are above 50% utilized, you're going to have an iss
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 07:04:02 +0100 in
,
Baptiste Baptiste wrote:
> Hi Jerome,
>
> Do you have any good reason to setup an active/active "cluster"?
cheap hosting with no control on their backbone and network load on one
box reach the max.
> crossed VIPs hosted by VRRP is recommended for "simpl
Hi Jerome,
Do you have any good reason to setup an active/active "cluster"?
crossed VIPs hosted by VRRP is recommended for "simple" active/active
setup then as you mentioned, playing with DNS RR.
conntrack is a bad idea with haproxy ;)
If you expect a massive traffic, it's better to use a first
10 matches
Mail list logo
