Re: load balance

Hi,

Basicly I'm looking for redundancy on my Web Server (an image server, that
is
not using Mysql, PHP and CGI).

I've already tried RedHat Piranha with no success using two servers
and know I'm testing the balance (do the loadbalance and failover) and
considering to use mod_backhand.

Thank you,

Eduardo.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark A. Garcia" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 10:52 PM
Subject: Re: [m_b_users] load balance


> On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 02:32:51PM -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 01:56:04PM -0400, Theo E. Schlossnagle wrote:
> > > Eduardo wrote:
> > > >Hi,
> > > >
> > > >Does mod_bakchand knows when a web server is not responding ?
> > > >
> > > >I want to build a web server (2 machines) with load balance, but what
if
> > > >one of
> > > >then go down (not the machine, the httpd service) ? The live machine
> > > >will know
> > > >(will recalculate the cost to each one in "real time") that the other
> > > >one has died ?
> > >
> > > Yes.  mod_backhand knows when any of the machines are unavailable.
> >
> > I am considering mod_backhand on a three server system, two of them are
> > LAMP backends, and the third, is the frontend site. I noticed in the
> > docs for mod_backhand that it seemed really geared for massive clusters
> > of machines. Would I see a real benefit with only 2 (or maybe 3 if I can
> > rearange some stuff) machines in the cluster?
>
> What kind of benefit are you looking for?  The most obvious benefit would
be
> the redundancy on your web services.  There are definate benefits to using
> mod_backhand for LAMP setups.  Not sure how your mysql is setup so I can't
> comment any further.
>
> Cheers,
> -.mag
>
> _______________________________________________
> backhand-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.backhand.org/mailman/listinfo/backhand-users