Re: Apache clustering w/ load balancing and failover
Thomas Lamy wrote:
If you use keepalived to switch IP's, you don't care about your dns
server giving the IP of a failed server because your working server(s)
keep answering on the ip of the failed server. And BIG isp's caches
cache entire dns query results (all ip's, not only one). It's up to the
client's dns resolver to use one IP at random. If you've got enough
volume that you need load sharing, you should have enough randomness to
split the load _almost_ equally. Of course, I'm not saying this is as
good as a real LVS setup, but it could be a good compromise.
Mathieu Martin wrote:
Mario Lopez wrote:
over it keeps sending them connections, I once saw a DNS
server implemented in Perl which worked in a round robin
fashion but making some kind of test to know if the server
was up and running correctly, I remeber it was called
something like "lb-named"
The problem with round robin is that when one server fails
Why not using 'roundrobin' ???
Install a couple of Web-Servers, give each Server an IP and
then setup for each Server a A-Record on your DNS-Server
pointing to the same hostname.
Why not use (keepalived?) with round robin dns then?. You get load
balancing, redundancy, and you don't need unnecessary additionnal
servers or kernel patches or whatever. Even with a lot of servers, it
should scale pretty well. Works too with servers in several
different internet pipes, as long as there are at least two
each pipe for redundancy.
You're wrong. round robin dns isn't HA, isn't load balancing, it's just
request spreading. You can't control how many (DNS-)clients cache one of the
RR IP's, therefore you won't get even load on your RR'ed servers.
Plus you _have_ to use a tool like "lb-named" to keep your round robin dns
from giving out the IP of a failed server.
It really comes down to using LVS+(keepalived|heartbeat|...) or pen.