Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Server Redundancy
From: Simon Lockhart <simonl () rd bbc co uk>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 08:29:24 +0100

On Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 12:14:43AM -0700, Bill Woodcock wrote:

      On 7 Aug 2003, Paul Vixie wrote:
    > > If you go out and spend a few thousand you can also get Allied Telesyn
    > > L2-L4 products that now support Load Balancing.  Actually the rapier
    > > 24i is about $2000 Canadian.  (I'd have to check the VAR pricing)
    > how much would i have to pay to not have that extra powered box between
    > my data and my customers?
    > oh, i forgot, it's zero, isn't it?

Yup, ah've allus been a mite suspicious of products fo' which the
competitive upgrade is a patch-cord.

Likewise. I have a bit of a dislike of putting a single "port 80 terminating"
box in front of the 10's of servers I've just put into the webfarm. I've built
all this redundancy into the server side of things, and then I have to funnel
all the port 80 traffic through a single box (well, 2 for redundancy).

We currently use DNS load-balancing for both global and local loadbalancing,
and it works well, apart from not being able to immediately drop a box out
of load-balance.

The gated solution sounds interesting, but doesn't automatically have the
feedback loop of stopping advertising itself when apache stops responding,
but the box is still up (which is a fairly common occurence in our Apache2

Simon Lockhart         |   Tel: +44 (0)1628 407720 (x37720) | Si fractum 
Technology Manager     |   Fax: +44 (0)1628 407701 (x37701) | non sit, noli 
BBC Internet Services  | Email: Simon.Lockhart () bbc co uk    | id reficere
BBC Technology, Maiden House, Vanwall Road, Maidenhead. SL6 4UB. UK

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]