Search Results

Search found 814 results on 33 pages for 'balancing'.

Page 15/33 | < Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >

  • Load balancers, multiple data centers and url based routing

    - by kunkunur
    There is one data center - dc1. There is a business need to setup another data center - dc2 in another geography and there might be more in the future say dc3. Within the data center dc1: There are two web servers say WS1 and WS2. These two webservers do not share anything currently. There isnt any necessity foreseen to have more webservers within each dc. dc1 also has a local load balancer which has been setup with session stickiness. So if a user say u1 lands on dc1 and if the load balancer decides to route his first request to WS1 then from there on all u1's requests will get routed to WS1. Local load balancer and webservers are invisible to the user. Local load balancer listens to the traffic on a virtual ip which is assigned to the virtual cluster of webservers ws1 and ws2. Virtual ip is the ip to which the host name is resolved to in the DNS. There are no client specific subdomains as of now instead there is a client specific url(context). ex: www.example.com/client1 and www.example.com/client2. Given above when dc2 is onboarded I want to route the traffic between dc1 and dc2 based on the client. The options that I have found so far are. Have client specific subdomains e.g. client1.example.com and client2.example.com and assign each of them with the virtual ip of the data center to which I want to route them. or Assign www.example.com and www1.example.com to first dc i.e. dc1 and assign www2.example.com to dc2. All requests will first get routed to dc1 where WS1 and WS2 will redirect the user to www1.example.com or www2.example.com based on whether the url ends with /client1 or /client2. I need help in the following If I setup a global load balancer between dc1 and dc2 do I have any alternative solutions. That is, can a global load balancer route the traffic based on the url ? Are there drawbacks to subdomain based solutions compared to www1 solution? With www1 solution I am worried that it creates a dependency on dc1 atleast for the first request and the user will see that he is getting redirected to a different url.

    Read the article

  • Use HAProxy or Nginx to Load Balance between VPS

    - by xperator
    I want to load balance + failover backup multiple vps webservers hosted on different providers. I heard that for HAProxy you need multiple server under the same subnet, plus a shared (virtual) ip address between load balancers. But it's not possible in my case cause every VPS is on different node/network. Is there a way to use HAProxy in this kind of setup ? ( Please explain how briefly, I don't want to hear your "YES" answer ) What about NginX? Is it possible to achieve same result with Nginx ? (when servers are located on different nets) I know about Round Rubin DNS, but it doesn't provide a real failover solution, neither a load balance between servers.

    Read the article

  • LVS / IPVS difference in ActiveConn since upgrading

    - by Hans
    I've recently migrated from an old version of LVS / ldirectord (Ultra Monkey) to a new Debian install with ldirectord. Now the amount of Active Connections is usually higher than the amount of Inactive Connections, it used to be the other way around. Basically on the old load balancer the connections looked something like: -> RemoteAddress:Port Forward Weight ActiveConn InActConn -> 10.84.32.21:0 Masq 1 12 252 -> 10.84.32.22:0 Masq 1 18 368 However since migrating it to the new load balancer it looks more like: -> RemoteAddress:Port Forward Weight ActiveConn InActConn -> 10.84.32.21:0 Masq 1 313 141 -> 10.84.32.22:0 Masq 1 276 183 Old load balancer: Debian 3.1 ipvsadm 1.24 ldirectord 1.2.3 New load balancer: Debian 6.0.5 ipvsadm 1.25 ldirectord 1.0.3 (I guess the versioning system changed) Is it because the old load balancer was running a kernel from 2005, and ldirectord from 2004, and things have simply changed in the past 7 - 8 years? Did I miss some sysctl settings that I should be enforcing for it to behave in the same way? Everything appears to be working fine but can anyone see an issue with this behaviour? Thanks in advance! Additional info: I'm using LVS in masquerading mode, the real servers have the load balancer as their gateway. The real servers are running Apache, which hasn't changed during the upgrade. The boxes themselves show roughly the same amount of Inactive Connections shown in ipvsadm.

    Read the article

  • Loadbalancing with nginx and tomcat

    - by London
    Hello this should be fairly easy to answer for any system admin, the problem is that I'm not server admin but I have to complete this task, I'm very close but still not managing to do it. Here is what I mean, I have two tomcat instance running on machine1 and machine2. People usually access those by visiting urls : http://machine1:8080/appName http://machine2:9090/appName The problem is when I setup nginx with domain name i.e domain.com, nginx sends requests to http://machine1:8080/ and http://machine2:9090/ instead of http://machine1:8080/ and http://machine2:9090/appName Here is my configuration (very basic as it can be noted) : upstream backend { server machine1:8080; server machine2:9090; } server { listen 80; server_name www.mydomain.com mydomain.com; location / { # needed to forward user's IP address to rails proxy_set_header X-Real-IP $remote_addr; # needed for HTTPS proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-For $proxy_add_x_forwarded_for; proxy_set_header Host $http_host; proxy_redirect off; proxy_max_temp_file_size 0; proxy_pass http://backend; } #end location } #end server What changes must I do to do the following : - when user visits mydomain.com - transfer him to either machine1:8080/appName or machine2:9090 Thank you

    Read the article

  • Apache mod_remoteip and access logs

    - by GioMac
    Since Apache 2.4 I've started using mod_remoteip instead of mod_extract_forwarded for rewriting client address from x-forwarded-for provided by frontend servers (varnish, squid, apache etc). So far everything works fine with the modules, i.e. php, cgi, wsgi etc... - client addresses are shown as they should be, but I couldn't write client address in access logs (%a, %h, %{c}a). No luck - I'm always getting 127.0.0.1 (localhost forward ex.). How to log client's ip address when using mod_remoteip?

    Read the article

  • Possible to redirect from HTTPS to HTTP behind load-balancer?

    - by Derek Hunziker
    I have a basic ASP.NET application that sits behind an F5 load-balancer. Incoming SSL requests (over HTTPS) terminate at the load-balancer and all internal communication between the load-balancer and my application servers is unsecure (over HTTP). When a unsecure request comes in, my app is able to use Response.Redirect("https://...") to redirect a secure URL with no problems. However, the other direction appears to be impossible - I cannot redirect from HTTPS to HTTP using Response.Redirect() from my application. The URL remains HTTPS for the client and does not change. Could the F5 be preventing the redirect for ever reaching the client? Is there any special configuration necessary to let this happen?

    Read the article

  • How do I move an Amazon micro instance to a small instance?

    - by Navetz
    I want to move my instance to a micro instance to a small instance but when I try to launch a new AMI based on my Micro instance AMI it only gives me the option for 64 bit instances. My initial ami is based off an ubuntu 10.04 image. Is it not possible to move between 64 bit and 32 bit instance? Would it be possible to use a load balancer to have a 32bit instance and a 64bit instance work together? I have a website/web app that I will be uploading huge volumes of data to. I will be starting with 65gigs of images and then moving up to 100+ gigs of images. I am not sure which instance type would be best for this. I was going to use a load balancer and auto scaling to increase the number of instance when the load is high. Also when using a load balancer, does one of the AMI instance become the primary image and the rest act as clones of it?

    Read the article

  • connections in FIN_WAIT and CLOSE_WAIT state

    - by Raj
    I would like to elaborate the setup so You guys can understand the question and answer more accurately. I have HAProxy as load-balancer, 4 webservers (apache 2.2.3) and one database server (MySQL 5). I am monitoring these servers by nagios. I have disabled the keepalive on apache as we have only 8GB of memory. Now what happens whenever I receive alerts for high memory and cpu utilization, I have observed that the connections from apache to database server hang in established mode (keepalive with timeout value of 7200) and at other side means connections between haproxy and apache shows status as FIN_WAIT on haproxy server and CLOSE_WAIT at apache side. I also see the huge memory swapping and apache taking the most of the memory. I did strace on apache process and did not find any information. strace gets attached to apache process but did not produce any output. The processlist on Mysql server show s those processes in sleep mode. The application on webserver is Magento a php application. if you need further information please let me know. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How can one domain route to an always-changing pool of servers?

    - by ryeguy
    I'm sure this is an easy solution, I'm just not too familiar with how DNS works or if that's even related to this problem. If I'm running a web service on amazon ec2, distributed across many instances, how can I make it so a single domain name can be used to access the entire pool of servers, which will be changing from time to time? Since the instances may be present one second but gone the next (and vice versa), I need a way to randomly pick an active member of the cluster to route to. The updates would have to be instantaneous. Is this even possible, with dns caching and all?

    Read the article

  • How to divert traffic based on hostname using HAProxy?

    - by Bosky
    I've had some initial success with HAProxy setting up a bunch of app servers listening on various other ports. I now have another webserver listening on one port, and i'd like to what changes to make to my config to flow traffic by hostname as well. The following is the current setup, assuming: my apache webserver is running at examplecom:8001 my bunch of app servers 0.0.0.0:8081, 0.0.0.0:8082 , 0.0.0.0:8083 global log 127.0.0.1 local0 log 127.0.0.1 local1 notice maxconn 4096 debug #quiet #user haproxy #group haproxy defaults log global mode http option httplog option dontlognull retries 3 redispatch maxconn 2000 contimeout 5000 clitimeout 50000 srvtimeout 50000 listen appservers 0.0.0.0:80 mode http balance roundrobin option httpclose option forwardfor #option httpchk HEAD /check.txt HTTP/1.0 server inst1 0.0.0.0:8081 cookie server01 check inter 2000 fall 3 server inst2 0.0.0.0:8082 cookie server02 check inter 2000 fall 3 server inst3 0.0.0.0:8083 cookie server01 check inter 2000 fall 3 server inst4 0.0.0.0:8084 cookie server02 check inter 2000 fall 3 capture cookie vgnvisitor= len 32 (any other comments on the ^ setup are welcome.) Now I'd like to continue the same above, but in addition in case - if the hostname is myspecialtopleveldomain<dot>com, then would like to flow traffic to example<dot>com:8001 ~B

    Read the article

  • Nginx load distribution and multi-domain SSL

    - by Steve Clark
    I'm researching into the best methods of two new parts of our infrastructure, hopefully finding a single solution for both. 1) We're currently running a single application server, and we're going to be adding an additional application server and load balance between the two. 2) We handle a few thousand domains across the application server(s), and we're looking to support SSL. The best method i've come across so far is using nginx for it's Load Distribution to serve the requests to the application servers, and for it's SSL support. If a request is using SSL, nginx accepts the request on, terminates SSL and pipes to apache (app servers). Now, that's all good, but i'm yet to figure out how we can let nginx handle multiple domains using SSL. We're potentially looking at using UCC SSL Certs, so we can support 150 domains on a single certificate, with each cert on a single IP. I'm all new to this (My experience is just with physical load balancers and a single domains on SSL), so any advice would be very much appreciated.

    Read the article

  • create a CNAME record for AWS LoadBalancer DNS name

    - by t q
    I am trying to setup a loadBalancer on AWS. The A-Record it gave me looks like myLoadBalancer-**********.us-east-1.elb.amazonaws.com however when i try to put that in my domain registrars A-Record, i get an errorIP address is not valid. Must be of type x.x.x.x where x is 0-255. amazons solution is you should create a CNAME record for the LoadBalancer DNS name, or use Amazon Route 53 to create a hosted zone. route 53 gives me DNS numbers but if i use that then my email doesnt work from the registrar. question: is there a way to use route 53 and retain my emails? or should i create a CNAME record for the LoadBalancer DNS name, if so how do i do this ... not sure what this means?

    Read the article

  • How can I force all requests to be SSL when using EC2 load balancer?

    - by chris
    I currently have a single EC2 instance which is forcing all requests to be secure by using mod_rewrite: RewriteEngine On RewriteCond %{SERVER_PORT} !443 RewriteRule ^(.*)$ https://%{HTTP_HOST}$1 [R,L] I am planning on moving to a load balanced setup, with multiple back-end instances. If I set up my EC2 load balancer with my certs, do I need to use SSL to communicate between the LB and my instances? If not, is it as simple as replacing the RewriteCond with RewriteCond %{HTTP:X-Forwarded_Proto} ^http$ Edit: I tried using the x-forwarded-proto, but it does not appear to work. Is there another way to detect if someone is connected to the LB via SSL?

    Read the article

  • Do HTTP reverse proxies typically enable HTTP Keep-Alive on the client side of the proxied connection and not on the server side?

    - by LostInComputer
    HAProxy has the ability to enable HTTP keep-alive on the client side (client <- HAProxy) but disable it on the server side (HAProxy <- server). Some of our clients connect to our web service via satellite so the latency is ~600ms and I think that by enabling keep-alive, it will speed things up a bit. Am I right? Is this supported by Nginx? Is this a widely implemented feature in other software and hardware load balancers? What else besides HAProxy?

    Read the article

  • How to share datastores between multiple exchange servers?

    - by Johan
    I have an Exchange 2003 box that is seriously overstressed. I want to transfer its duties to a new and faster box. I don't cannot suffer downtime, so I have to do this stuff live. Here's what I plan to do: Install Exchange 2003 on the new server Set up the new server, so it will accept requests from users for their mailboxes I want to do as little manual set up as possible, because that 'll eat up my time and is too error prone Than I want to transfer my datastores one by one to the new server and have those users (once the datastore in the new server is up and running) to get their data from the new server (without them noticing) I don't have to transfer all the datastores, some of them need to stay on the old box (because I'm still waiting for extra HD space to arrive from the supplier) What steps do I need to follow to do this? The new box has never seen this domain before, the old exchange server is not the DC, we have a dedicated DC.

    Read the article

  • 1K incoming http post requests per second, each with a 10-50K file

    - by Blankman
    I'm trying to figure out what kind of server setup I will need to support: 1K http post requests per second each post will contain a xml file between 5-50K (average of 25 kilobytes) Even if I get a 100 Mb/s connection with my dedicated box (they usually give 10 Mb/s but you can upgrade), from my calculations that is about 12K kb/s which means about 480 25kb files per second. So this means I need around 3 servers then, each with 100 Mb/s connection. Would a single server running HAProxy be able to redirect the requests to other servers or does this mean I need to get something else that can handle more than 100 Mb/s to proxy things out to the other servers? If my math is off I'd appreciate any corrections you may have.

    Read the article

  • Windows NLB + IIS - Stops serving pages

    - by Ye Ol Developer
    We are currently running Windows NLB and IIS7 load balanced across two servers. What happens is randomly and sporadically the servers stop serving web pages. What we have noticed is that if we run the sites on a dedicated IP on either of the servers, these issues do not exist. As soon as we switch back to the load balanced IP, then everything goes awry. When the servers stop serving pages, we can still TS into the server and surf them internally without issues, or switch to the dedicated IP. However the internal network cannot even access the files from the load balanced IP. We are running out of idea's here. Has anyone had a similar problem?

    Read the article

  • Zero downtime deployment (Tomcat), Nginx or HAProxy, behind hardware LB - how to "starve" old server?

    - by alexeypro
    Currently we have the following setup. Hardware Load Balancer (LB) Box A running Tomcat on 8080 (TA) Box B running Tomcat on 8080 (TB) TA and TB are running behind LB. For now it's pretty complicated and manual job to take Box A or Box B out of LB to do the zero downtime deployment. I am thinking to do something like this: Hardware Load Balancer (LB) Box A running Nginx on 8080 (NA) Box A running Tomcat on 8081 (TA1) Box A running Tomcat on 8082 (TA2) Box B running Nginx on 8080 (NB) Box B running Tomcat on 8081 (TB1) Box B running Tomcat on 8082 (TB2) Basically LB will be directing traffic between NA and NB now. On each of Nginx's we'll have TA1, TA2 and TB1, TB2 configured as upstream servers. Once one of the upstreams's healthcheck page is unresponsive (shutdown) the traffic goes to another one (HttpHealthcheckModule module on Nginx). So the deploy process is simple. Say, TA1 is active with version 0.1 of the app. Healthcheck on TA1 is OK. We start TA2 with Healthcheck on it as ERROR. So Nginx is not talking to it. We deploy app version 0.2 to TA2. Make sure it works. Now, we switch the Healthcheck on TA2 to OK, switch Healthcheck to TA1 to ERROR. Nginx will start serving TA2, and will remove TA1 out of rotation. Done! And now same with the other box. While it sounds all cool and nice, how do we "starve" the Nginx? Say we have pending connections, some users on TA1. If we just turn it off, sessions will break (we have cookie-based sessions). Not good. Any way to starve traffic to one of the upstream servers with Nginx? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • What method of MySQL mirroring should I use for this?

    - by user45745
    I'm running an web application hosting service (basically hosting forums for free), and I have two remote servers at my disposal. The code for the application is stored on both servers and isn't a problem, but I'm wondering how to deal with the databases. When someone goes onto a site *.example-host.com, they are sent to one of the two servers and both must be capable of loading the forums from a database. The database must also have write access, for when new members register or post topics etc. The main requirement is speed, but uptime is also important (if a server goes out, the site should still work). I have a few options, but I'm inexperienced and not sure which to go with: 1) [PHP] Split the forum records 50:50 between the two servers. If a server does not have the record for a forum requested, it can request it from the other by remote MySQL and load it. This idea sounded okay, until I realised that 50% of the time, users would be waiting significantly longer for pages to load. I also realised that if one of the servers went down, half the forums would be inaccessible and registrations would have to be disabled. 2) [MySQL] Dual master replication. This would attempt to mirror the two databases and sounds perfect, but I've heard that it can be very problematic. I don't know how fast this is. 3) [MySQL] Use a standard replication, distribute read only queries on both nodes and read/write queries to the master. This sounds like a good option, but again, I'm not sure on speed. I also don't know what would happen if the master server went down. If you have any other suggestions, please post them :)

    Read the article

  • Basic Weight Questions with HAProxy

    - by Kyle Brandt
    Do weights assigned to servers only effect the balance within that particular backend? When implementing weights for the first time, if I give all the servers in a backend the same number, would that be the same as before when there we no weights? How do I calculate just how much traffic I am shiffting by adjust weights by certain amounts. For example: server web1 10.10.10.10 weight 100 server web2 10.10.10.11 weight 100 server web3 10.10.10.12 weight 90 server web4 10.10.10.13 weight 90

    Read the article

  • Redirect without changing URL

    - by Coobadivin
    Here's the setup. We have a hardware load balancer with an http virtual cluster. Let's call this virtual cluster example1.com. This virtual cluster load balances between two squid reverse proxies which are also on the same physical servers as the web servers. Squid listens on 80 and points to itself as the cache_peer web server which listens on 81. We also have a standalone web server which we will call example2.com. What we are trying to do is create a subdirectory on example1.com called example1.com/example2. This will point to example2.com, but we want our users to stay at example1.com/example2 in their browser. So, it's like a redirect without actually being a redirect. How the hell do I go about doing this? Is this even possible? I'm looking at squid docs in the meantime. example1.com is running a proprietary web server - not Apache :( We can't host example2.com's content in example1.com's file system. These are two very different platforms.

    Read the article

  • How to maximize parallel download from S3

    - by StCee
    I got a lot of images to load from Amazon S3 on a single page, and sometimes it takes quite some time to load all the images. I heard that splitting the images to load from different sub-domains would help parallel downloads, however what is the actual implementation on that? While it is easy to split for sub-domains like static,image, etc; Should I make like 10 sub-domains (image1, image2...) to load say 100 images? Or is there some clever ways to do? (By the way I am considering using memcache to cache the S3images; I am not sure if it is possible. I would be grateful for any further comments. Thanks a lot!

    Read the article

  • Why can't I access a webserver through a load balancer on my local network?

    - by Karptonite
    When I try to use curl (or wget, lynx, etc) to connect from a server on our local network to our website, which is on a local server behind a CoyotePoint load balancer, curl fails. Ping does not have this problem. When I curl directly to any of the servers behind that load balancer (from and to the same local network), I also have no problem. It doesn't matter whether the local server I'm curling from is behind the load balancer or not. Does anyone have any idea why I can't access my webserver through the load balancer on my local network?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >