Re: load balance

On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 06:52:07PM -0700, Mark A. Garcia wrote:
> 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.
>

Redundancy, and load balancing. The frontend server also serves as a
vhost, the two backends, are for ad campaigns. I routinely have loads of
5-10 on the backends, and much lower, 1-3 on the frontend, then a link
is posted to slashdot and... .  I'd like to spread out the load on all
three systems, or at least, on the two backend systems. They both serve
different ad campaigns, so they usually don't peak at the same time. 

Thanks

 
-- 
Jim Richardson         http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock

Linux, because eventually, you grow up enough to be trusted with a fork()