[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Webserver Redundacy

On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 10:09 +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 08:52:36AM +1000, Julian De Marchi wrote:
> > > Except that by default DNS will use a round-robin approach for multiple
> > > A records.  So, 50% of the requests will go one server and the other 50%
> > > to the other server.  Is that what you want?  If not, you probably want
> > > something like fake and/or heartbeat.
> > 
> > Load balancing is not the issues, but the website given has put some *good*
> DNS-based round-robin "load balancing" is pretty useless for what you
> want. it doesn't give you redundancy, if one server goes down then half
> the requests will fail.

True. But the client will figure out (in the case of websites) which IP
to use.  So the client experience "just works", perhaps after a bit of
delay by hitting the down server first.

> > ideas in my head. I think the heart beat will be the solution I will
> > look into to, because either way I will have NS1, NS2, NS3 or NS4 to
> > check for the availability of my WWW and MX servers. So the heartbeat
> > will always be ticking away.
> i suggest you look into LVS anyway....by the time you've got heartbeat set up,
> you've already done about two-thirds of the work needed to get load-balancing
> working as well.  with a little bit more work, you get load-balancing as well
> as just failover.

What if the load-balancer fails? :-)

-Jim P. (don't over architect a simple solution ;-) )

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: