I think a part of the problem is perception. Clustering in most cases
leads to _LOWER_ performance on I/O bound processes. If it's CPU bound,
then sure, it'll help. But on I/O it'll likely do you harm. It's more
about redundancy and graceful degradation than performance. There's no way
of
Come on folks, you're making me feel like I should give up or something :)
From Gordan;
I think a part of the problem is perception.
Perception can only be what marketing says it will do. I can't say I have once
seen anything that says it won't scale performance wise by virtue of what it
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Come on folks, you're making me feel like I should give up or something :)
From Gordan;
I think a part of the problem is perception.
Perception can only be what marketing says it will do.
And marketing rarely (if ever) reflects what things
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is ab sending a test to an LVS server in front of a 3 node web server.
The average loads on each server was around 8.00 to 10.00. These aren't very
good numbers and I'm wondering where to start looking.
Using a load balancer in front of GFS nodes is tricky.
Using a load balancer in front of GFS nodes is tricky. Make sure to set
your scheduling rule (or whatever it is called in LVS) in such a way
Do you mean such as a session, so that the user is not moved between servers?
That's something I did take into account when building the LVS LB's. I also
