Search Results

Search found 8 results on 1 pages for 'lsyncd'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • Running an rsync sweep before initializing lsyncd for synchronizing instances on EC2

    - by chrisallenlane
    My company uses several EC2 servers that will scale up and down according to the load we're receiving on our sites at any given moment. For the sake of our discussion here, we're running four instances: master.ourdomain.com - the file syncing "hub" of the webservers www1/www2/www3.ourdomain.com - three webservers which turn on or off as dictated by load I'm using lsyncd to keep all of the webservers in sync, and for the most part, it's working quite well. We're using a two-way syncing scheme, such that each webserver syncs against master, and master syncs against each webserver. Thus, the webservers are kept in sync, even though they aren't syncing against each other directly. I'm having one problem that I'm having a hard time solving,though. It occurs under these circumstances: When changes are made on master (perhaps after we've pushed new code), while some of the redundant webservers are sleeping And then a sleeping webserver wakes-up to absorb load Under that circumstance, I would like the following to happen: First, the newly-awoken webserver should sync its file structure - one way - against master, to bring its web application code up-to-date. Then, and only then, should it begin pushing changes in its file structure back to master. Unfortunately, currently, when a sleeping server is started, when lsyncd starts up, it pushes changes back to master before updating its own codebase, thus overwriting new code with old. Thus, before lsyncd starts, I'd like to be able to synchronize the webservers code against master's, perhaps by running a simple one-way rsync against the two machines. We're running lsyncd v.2, and I've tried to make this happen by using the "bash" configuration options documented in the lsyncd manual. My configuration file looks like this: settings = { logfile = "/home/user/log/lsyncd/log.txt", statusFile = "/home/user/log/lsyncd/status.txt", maxProcesses = 2, nodaemon = false, } bash = { onStartup = "rsync [email protected]:/home/user/www /home/user/www" } sync{ default.rsyncssh, source="/home/user/www/", host="[email protected]", targetdir="/home/user/www/", rsyncOpts="-ltus", excludeFrom="/home/user/conf/lsyncd/exclude" } (I've obviously redacted that file somewhat to protect the identities of the guilty.) Simply put, though, this just isn't working. How else might I approach this problem? I was looking at the --delete-after option in man rsync, but I don't think that does what I'm looking for. Are there any suggestions about how I should approach this problem? Thanks for lending your time and expertise. Chris

    Read the article

  • lsyncd + csync2 : cluster of 3 or more nodes

    - by sbrattla
    I've got 3 (and potentially more) web servers hosting the same content (fronted by a load balancer). Thus, I need to make sure that files on these web servers are the same. It appears that csync2 in combination with lsyncd is able to do synchronize a cluster of nodes, but according to this article there's a problem with cyclic events in such a setup. In other words, the author writes that a file change on one machine would trigger a replication event to other machines, which again would trigger a replication event back to the original machine. It appears that this is a consequence of the setup which uses lsyncd (and inotify) to catch file modification events and from there trigger csync2 to replicate the file tree. Does anyone have experience with lsyncd in combination with csync2. Have you had trouble with cyclic events?

    Read the article

  • How can I adapt this debian init.d script to work with CentOS 5?

    - by Jason Baker
    I'm trying to get an lsyncd daemon running. I installed the lsyncd RPM from epel, but it doesn't seem to come with an init.d script. In the lsyncd repository, there's this script that works with Debian. However, when I try to run this under CentOS, I get this message: /etc/init.d/lsyncd: line 46: log_daemon_msg: command not found How can I adapt this to work with CentOS?

    Read the article

  • Vagrant synced folders aren't case sensitive

    - by lvmisooners
    For our web stack, we are moving from a Windows Server to CentOS. To facilitate development, we're utilizing Vagrant to run CentOS VMs locally. We're using Vagrant's Synced Folders feature to allow devs to use their favorite IDEs on their host machine, but we're finding that one key feature is missing from this setup: file system case sensitivity. The synced folder inside the VM apparently takes on the properties of the host's file system, so if I'm developing from a Windows machine, or even OSX, the file system isn't case sensitive. This is a big issue, as our production servers will be pure CentOS, and its file system will be case sensitive. Case sensitivity is one of the main reasons we wanted to have a local VM. We want to prevent "It works on my machine!" Some workarounds we've considered or tried: Use lsyncd to sync from the vagrant share to a location within the VM that is case sensitive updating files on the host doesn't seem to generate the events in the VM that lsync listens to Make a case-sensitive partition on the host (Doesn't work for Windows) Use samba this may be an option, but we haven't vetted it yet. Is there a better way? Note that we have developers using Windows, OS X, and Ubuntu, and the solution needs to work everywhere.

    Read the article

  • Bidirectional real-time sync of large file tree between two distant linux servers

    - by dlo
    By large file tree I mean about 200k files, and growing all the time. A relatively small number of files are being changed in any given hour though. By bidirectional I mean that changes may occur on either server and need to be pushed to the other, so rsync doesn't seem appropriate. By distant I mean that the servers are both in data centers, but geographically remote from each other. Currently there are only 2 servers, but that may expand over time. By real-time, it's ok for there to be a little latency between syncing, but running a cron every 1-2 minutes doesn't seem right, since a very small fraction of files may change in any given hour, let alone minute. EDIT: This is running on VPS's so I might be limited on the kinds of kernel-level stuff I can do. Also, the VPS's are not resource-rich, so I'd shy away from solutions that require lots of ram (like Gluster?). What's the best / most "accepted" approach to get this done? This seems like it would be a common need, but I haven't been able to find a generally accepted approach yet, which was surprising. (I'm seeking the safety of the masses. :) I've come across lsyncd to trigger a sync at the filesystem change level. That seems clever though not super common, and I'm a bit confused by the various lsyncd approaches. There's just using lsyncd with rsync, but it seems this could be fragile for bidirectionality since rsync doesn't have a notion of memory (eg- to know whether a deleted file on A should be deleted on B or whether it's a new file on B that should be copied to A). lipsync appears to be just a lsyncd+rsync implementation, right? Then there's using lsyncd with csync2, like this: http://www.axivo.com/community/threads/lightning-fast-synchronization-with-csync2-and-lsyncd.121/ ... I'm leaning towards this approach, but csync2 is a little quirky, though I did do a successful test of it. I'm mostly concerned that I haven't been able to find a lot of community confirmation of this method. People on here seem to like Unison a lot, but it seems that it is no longer under active development and it's not clear that it has an automatic trigger like lsyncd. I've seen Gluster mentioned, but maybe overkill for what I need? UPDATE: fyi- I ended up going with the original solution I mentioned: lsyncd+csync2. It seems to work quite well, and I like the architectural approach of having the servers be very loosely joined, so that each server can operate indefinitely on its own regardless of the link quality between them.

    Read the article

  • Data replication between two web nodes

    - by HTF
    I have Wordpress installation running on two web servers (Nginx). There is unidirectional synchronization from server A to server B and I'm using lsyncd for this purpose. with his configuration I have to add blog posts from the first web server so the data is replicated to the second one - how I can force access to Wordpress back-end only from the first web server? Please note that both servers have the same domain for Wordpress. Regards

    Read the article

  • How can I automatically synchronize a directory tree on multiple machines?

    - by Blacklight Shining
    I have two Mac laptops and a Debian server, each with a directory that I would like to keep in sync between the three. The solution should meet the following criteria (in rough order of importance): It must not use any third-party service (e.g. Dropbox, SugarSync, Google whatever). This does not include installing additional software (as long as it's free). It must not require me to use specific directories or change my way of storing things. (Dropbox does this IIRC) It must work in all directions (changes made on /any/ machine should be pushed to the others) All data sent must be encrypted (I have ssh keypairs set up already) It must work even when not all machines are available (changes should be pushed to a machine when it comes back online) It must work even when the /directories/ on some machines are not available (they may be stored on disk images which will not always be mounted) This can be solved for Macs by using launchd to automatically launch and kill (or in some way change the behavior of) whatever daemon is used for syncing when the images are mounted and unmounted. It must be immediate (using an event-based system, not a periodic one like cron) It must be flexible (if more machines are added, I should be able to incorporate them easily) I also have some preferences that I would like to be fulfilled, but do not have to be: It should notify me somehow if there are conflicts or other errors. It should recognize symbolic and hard links and create corresponding ones. It should allow me to create a list of exceptions (subdirectories which will not be synced at all). It should not require me to set up port forwarding or otherwise reconfigure a network. This can be solved by using an ssh tunnel with reverse port forwarding. If you have a solution that meets some, but not all of the criteria, please contribute it in the comments as it might be useful in some way, and it might be possible to meet some of the criteria separately. What I tried, and why it didn't work: rsync and lsyncd do not support bidirectional synchronization csync2 is designed for server clusters and does not appear to work with machines with dynamic IPs DRBD (suggested by amotzg) involves installing a kernel module and does not appear to work on systems running OS X

    Read the article

  • 2 servers, high availability and faster response

    - by user17886
    I recently bought a second webserver because I worry about hardware failure of my old server. Now that I have that second server I wish to do a little more then just have one server standby and replicate all day. As long as it's there I might as well get some advantage our of it ! I have a website powered by ubuntu 12.04, nginx, php-fpm, apc, mysql (5.5) and couchdb. Im currently testing configurations where i can achieve failover AND make good use of the extra harware for faster responses / distributed load. The setup I am testing nowinvolves heartbeat for ip failover and two identical servers. Of the two servers only one has a public ip adress. If one server crashes the other server takes over the public ip adress. On an incoming request nginx forwards the request tot php-fpm to either server a of server b (50/50 if both servers are alive). Once the request has been send to php-fpm both servers look at localhost for the mysql server. I use master-master mysql replication for this. The file system is synced with lsyncd. This works pretty well but Im reading it's discouraged by the (mysql) community. Another option I could think of is to use one server as a mysql master and one server as a web/php server. The servers would still sync their filesystem, would still run the same duplicate software (nginx,mysql) but master slave mysql replication could be used. As long as bother servers are alive I could just prefer nginx to listen to ip a and mysql to ip b. If one server is down, the other server could take over the task of the other server, simply by ip switching. But im completely new at this so I would greatly value your expert advice. Is either of the two setups any good ? If you have any thoughts on this please let me know ! PS, virtualisation, hosting on different locations or active/passive setups are not solutions im looking for. I find virtual server either too slow or too expensive. I already have a passive failover on another location. But in case of a crash I found the site was still unreachable for too long due to dns caching.

    Read the article

1