Search Results

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

Page 5/33 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Load balancing on Ubuntu Server

  - by SabreWolfy

  I have Ubuntu 10.04.4 server (32-bit) installed on a headless quad-core machine with 2GB RAM. I'm running a command-line analysis which is analyzing a large amount of data, but which does not require a large amount of RAM. The tool does not provide any multi-threading, so the CPU load is sitting at 1.00 (or sometimes just a little over). I ran top and pressed 1 to see the load on each of the cores and noticed that "Cpu1" is always running at 100%. I thought that the load would be distributed between the cores, rather than loading one core all the time. I'm sure I've seen this load-balancing behaviour before in Ubuntu or Debian Desktop versions. Why would the Server edition work differently? The analysis will likely take several hours to run, so loading one core at 100% for many hours while the other 3 remain idle is surely not the best approach?

  Read the article

• Best Solution for Load Balancing geographically distributed NFS File Access?

  - by DairyKnight

  I'm trying to find an optimum solution for accessing the NFS file share in my company. We have a central file server in North America and has 30GB~50GB of updated data everyday. And it's very slow for our Europe and Asia branches to access directly. Therefore, I'm trying to setup two replicate servers in those continents. I'm currently using rsync, but wonder if there exists a better solution acts more like a distributed RAID, which allows the user to transparently access the file whether synced or not. And user request will be dispatched to remote server if the file is not yet synced. I'm now looking into DRBD, but it seems not to have the functionality of auto-dispatching requests. Does anyone know if there's a better solution?

  Read the article

• Ubuntu Pound Reverse Proxy Load Balancing Based off active server load?

  - by Andrew

  I have Pound installed on a loadbalancer. It seems to work okay, except that it randomly assigns the backend server to forward the request to. I've put 1 backend machine under so much load that it went into using swap, and I can't even ssh into it to test this scenareo. I would like the loadbalancer to realize that the machine is overloaded, and send it to a different backend machine. However it doesn't. I've read the man page and it seems like the directive "DynScale 1" is what would monitor this, but it still redirects to the overloaded server. I've also put in "HAport 22" to the backend figuring since I can't ssh in, neither could the loadbalancer and it would consider the backend server dead until it gets rid of the load and responds, but that didn't help either. If anyone could help with this, I'd appreciate it. My current config is below. ###################################################################### ## global options: User "www-data" Group "www-data" #RootJail "/chroot/pound" ## Logging: (goes to syslog by default) ## 0 no logging ## 1 normal ## 2 extended ## 3 Apache-style (common log format) LogLevel 3 ## check backend every X secs: Alive 5 DynScale 1 Client 1200 TimeOut 1500 # poundctl control socket Control "/var/run/pound/poundctl.socket" ###################################################################### ## listen, redirect and ... to: ## redirect all requests on port 80 to SSL ListenHTTP Address 192.168.1.XX Port 80 Service Redirect "https://xxx.com/" End End ListenHTTPS Address 192.168.1.XX Port 443 Cert "/files/www.xxx.com.pem" Service BackEnd Address 192.168.1.1 Port 80 HAport 22 End BackEnd Address 192.168.1.2 Port 80 HAport 22 End End End

  Read the article

• Combine VPN bandwith over two or more WAN connections? Load balancing?

  - by mistrfu

  Imagine you only have DSL with 5mbps Down and 2mbps Up. Is it possible to have 10 of these for example and combine them in a way that would increase the upstrean bandwidth to one server? In my head it works like this: intranet with one gateway/router router connected to multi wan load ballancer on each ballancer wan port router with vpn clinet set up, tunneling to a server ?some? software on the server in cloud joining all these connection into one interface again I would need this mostly for big uploads to a server, downlink to the office is not that important at all. Does it even make sense? I drew an image to clarify.

  Read the article

• MySQL replication - Should I handle load balancing from my client code (PHP) ?

  - by pirostraktor

  In a MySQL master-slave replication enviroment if I have 4 slave servers how can I execute load balanced select queries? Should I write a PHP class to dealing with the 4 slaves or it is possible to address queries to MySQL's own load balancer solution? Is there a MySQL load balancing solutions? Can I use some other tool to distribute my queries? What is the typical set up in situations like this? Thanks for all answers!

  Read the article

• What load-balancing system do you use in production? What do you think of it?

  - by MarkR

  There are a lot of different systems for balancing load and achieving redundancy in production servers (Not just web servers) Round-robin DNS Linux Virtual Server Cisco Local Director F5 BigIP Windows NLB etc? If you use one of these (or another) in production, which one? How well does it work for you? Have you evaluated others?

  Read the article

• How do I choose the number of connection for load balancer?

  - by user105196

  I want to add hardware load balancer for apache and I want to know how many people are connected to my server to to choose the type of load balancer: Local Load Balancing with SSL - 250 Connections Local Load Balancing with SSL - 500 Connections Local Load Balancing with SSL - 1000 Connections I run the following commands in the same time: netstat -nt|grep -c :443 ( all connection wait and ESTABLISHED) result : 1208 netstat -ant | grep 443 | grep EST | wc -l ( just ESTABLISHED connection) result :106 My question: Whichever is the correct value to choose the load balancer all connection or just ESTABLISHED ?

  Read the article

• Balancing game difficulty against player progression

  - by Raven Dreamer

  It seems that the current climate of games seems to cater to an obvious progression of player power, whether that means getting a bigger, more explosive gun in Halo, leveling up in an RPG, or unlocking new options in Command and Conquer 4. Yet this concept is not exclusive to video or computer games -- even in Dungeons and Dragons players can strive to acquire a +2 sword to replace the +1 weapon they've been using. Yet as a systems designer, the concept of player progression is giving me headache after headache. Should I balance around the players exact capabilities and give up on a simple linear progression? (I think ESIV:Oblivion is a good example of this) Is it better to throw the players into an "arms race" with their opponents, where if the players don't progress in an orderly manner, it is only a matter of time until gameplay is unbearably difficult? (4th Edition DnD strikes me as a good example of this) Perhaps it would make most sense to untether the core gameplay mechanics from progression at all -- give them flashier, more interesting (but not more powerful!) ways to grow?

  Read the article

• Balancing agressive invites

  - by Nils Munch

  I am designing a trading card game for mobiles, with the possibility to add cards to your collection using Gems, aquired through victories and inapp purchases. I am thinking to increase the spread of the game with a tracking system on game invites, enabling the user to invite a friend to play the game. If the friend doesn't own the game client (which is free) he will be offered to download it. If he joins the game, the original player earns X amount of gems as an reward. There can only be one player per mobile device, which should rule out some harvesting. My question is, how do you think the structure of this would be recieved ? All invites are mail based, unless the player already exists in the game world (then he gets a ingame invitation.) I have set a flood filter, so a player can only invite a friend (without the client installed) once a month.

  Read the article

• Network Load Balancing and AnyCast Routing

  - by user126917

  Hi All can anyone advise on problems with the following? I am planning on installing the following setup on my estate: I have 2 sites that both have a large amount of users. Goals are to keep things simple for the users and to have automatic failover above the database level. Our Database will exist at the primary site and be async mirrored to the secondary site with manual failover procedures.The database generate sequential ID's so distributing it is not an option. I plan to site IIS boxes at both sites with all of the business logic on them and heavy operations. The connections to SQL will be lightweight and DB reads will be cached on IIS. On this layer I plan to use Windows network load balancing and have the same IP or IPs across all IIS boxes at both sites. This way there will be automatic failover and no single point of failure. Also users can have one web address regardless of which site they are in automatically be network load balanced to their local IIS. This is great but obviously our two sites are on different subnets and as this will be one IP address with most of our traffic we can't go broadcasting everything across the link between the sites. To solve this problem we plan to use AnyCast routing over our network layer to route the traffic to the most local box that is listening which will be defined by the network load balancing. Has anyone used this setup before? Can anyone think of any issues with this? Also some specifics I can't find anywhere at the moment. If my Windows box is assigned an IP and listening on that IP but network load balancing is not accepting specific traffic then will AnyCast route away from that? Also can I AnyCast on a socket level?

  Read the article

• Balancing full time work and personal coding projects.

  - by pllee

  I am nearing the end of developing the major pieces of my website that I have been working on in my spare time for the last 3 months. My goal is to get it released by the end of next month and hopefully start making some money on it. Unfortunately the next step will be to write a lot of specific data handling and ui code that I can see becoming very tedious and boring. When I was first started the project I was able to find time for working on it easily, it was interesting and writing the back-end was new. Once I got to the start of writing stuff that I know and do at work (ui), it seemed harder and harder to make myself work on the project, sometimes the last thing I want to do when I get home from work is code again. Anyone in the same situation? Any tips on how to find time and effort for side projects without burning out? Any tips on staying on the right track?

  Read the article

• How to setup multiple WANs with load balancing?

  - by jon3laze

  What is the best way to setup multiple WAN's into a Ubuntu distro and load balance? I have two internet connections, one static and one dynamic and I need to combine and load balance them. I have been looking into the following method http://www.netlife.co.za/archived-articles/12-started.html but was wondering if anyone had suggestions that were more Ubuntu specific or possibly other distro's that would work better for this.

  Read the article

• Balancing dependency injection with public API design

  - by kolektiv

  I've been contemplating how to balance testable design using dependency injection with providing simple fixed public API. My dilemma is: people would want to do something like var server = new Server(){ ... } and not have to worry about creating the many dependencies and graph of dependencies that a Server(,,,,,,) may have. While developing, I don't worry too much, as I use an IoC/DI framework to handle all that (I'm not using the lifecycle management aspects of any container, which would complicate things further). Now, the dependencies are unlikely to be re-implemented. Componentisation in this case is almost purely for testability (and decent design!) rather than creating seams for extension, etc. People will 99.999% of the time wish to use a default configuration. So. I could hardcode the dependencies. Don't want to do that, we lose our testing! I could provide a default constructor with hard-coded dependencies and one which takes dependencies. That's... messy, and likely to be confusing, but viable. I could make the dependency receiving constructor internal and make my unit tests a friend assembly (assuming C#), which tidies the public API but leaves a nasty hidden trap lurking for maintenance. Having two constructors which are implicitly connected rather than explicitly would be bad design in general in my book. At the moment that's about the least evil I can think of. Opinions? Wisdom?

  Read the article

• Balancing Player vs. Monsters: Level-Up Curves

  - by ashes999

  I've written a fair number of games that have RPG-like "levelling up," where the player gains experience for killing monsters/enemies, and eventually, reaches a new level, where their stats increase. How do you find a balance between player growth, monster strength, and difficulty? The extreme ends of this spectrum are: Player levels up really fast and blows away monsters without much effort Monsters are incredibly strong and even at low levels, are very difficult to beat I've also tried a strange situation of making enemies relative to players, i.e. an enemy will always be at 50% or 100% or 150% of player stats (thus requiring the player to use other techniques instead of brute strength to succeeed). But where's the balance, and how do you find it? Edit: For example, I am expecting to hear things like: Balance high instead of balance low (200 HP and 20 str is easier to balance than 20 HP and 2 str) Look at easiest vs. hardest monsters, and see what you have in terms of a range

  Read the article

• Balancing SEO and Natural Writing Style

  The first rule is to make a website for users and to optimize it for search engines. You should not focus on Google or other search engines. Focus on visitors that will come to your site looking for some information.

  Read the article

• How to merge multiple internet connections into one

  - by Luis Alvarado

  My PC has 2 wired cards. Both gigalan. It also has 2 wireless cards. One broadcom with proprietary drivers and ralink with open software (which works much better than broadcom). My cellphone can share its connection wirelessly to my PC. But I also have a wired connection. So I have multiple connections that I can use to have internet. How can I merge 2 or more connections together and balance them to enjoy one unified internet experience that it is the sum of all internet connections connected to it. For example if I have an internet connection that offers 1024KB/Sec and another that offers 512KB/Sec and one small one that offers 128KB/Sec, after load balancing and merging all connections, I could download at a speed of 1664KB/Sec using all 3 internet connections as one for example. This question has always intrigued me.

  Read the article

• Load balancing a php program to support increasing users?

  - by Dave

  I have a php program that has been written keeping in mind a single server, so there are inherent limitation to how much it can handle. For example, the developer says that his current webhosting service provides him with "50 mysql connections" which he interprets as that only 50 people can be simultaneously logged onto it. What do we need to do if we want to scale it up so it can handle a load of 500 or more? How can we adapt this program to a "load balancer" with minimal changes? The application is writen in php and uses mysql.

  Read the article

• Load balance incoming traffic

  - by justin

  Dear All Please I have the following scenario. 3 servers voip / mail / terminal one load balancing router 2 internet connections (static ip`s) My concern is to load balance incoming traffic since the outgoing traffic is being taking care by the load balancing router. For instance all offices connect to the mail server via the internet same for voip and terminal services. The mail and voip clients are set up with one of the static ip`s and the router forwards the request to the appropriate server. But obviously like this there is no fail over nor load balancing cause all requests are being directed to one internet connection. Anyone has a suggestion was thing of a dns server, does this make sens ? or maybe a hosted option ? Thanks Justin

  Read the article

• Any worker agent monitors for appliance based load balancers?

  - by Zethris

  Looking to find out to what extent an appliance load balancer can monitor servers for both failover (say for example a service like apache tomcat fails) and load balancing? Right now it looks like it's just port monitoring/connection tracking and healthcheck urls that it will heartbeat and detect as down if it doesn't come back with a finished request. We are looking at the Kemp 3500 or Loadbalancer.org solutions. Is there any sort of web application level monitoring/load balancing that these load balancers can offer that can more directly interact with the servers it's balancing?

  Read the article

• Load balancing with multiple gateways

  - by ttouch

  I have to different ISPs, each on each own network. The main connects via ethernet and the secondary via wifi. The two networks have no relation at all. I just connect to them simultaneously. The reason I want to load balance between them is to achieve higher Internet speeds. Note: I have no advanced network hardware. Just my pc and the two routers that I have no access... main network: if: eth0 gw: 192.168.178.1 my ip: 192.168.178.95 speed: 400 kbit/s secondary network: if: wlan0 gw: 192.168.1.1 my ip: 192.168.1.95 speed: 300 kbit/s A diagram to explain the situation: http://i.imgur.com/NZdsv.jpg I'm on Arch Linux x64. I use netcfg to configure the interfaces Configs: # /etc/network.d/main CONNECTION='ethernet' DESCRIPTION='A basic static ethernet connection using iproute' INTERFACE='eth0' IP='static' ADDR='192.168.178.95' # /etc/network.d/second CONNECTION='wireless' DESCRIPTION='A simple WEP encrypted wireless connection' INTERFACE='wlan0' SECURITY='wep' ESSID='wifi_essid' KEY='the_password' IP="static" ADDR='192.168.1.95' And I use iptables to load balance, rules: #!/bin/bash /usr/sbin/ip route flush table ISP1 2>/dev/null /usr/sbin/ip rule del fwmark 101 table ISP1 2>/dev/null /usr/sbin/ip route add table ISP1 192.168.178.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.178.95 metric 202 /usr/sbin/ip route add table ISP1 default via 192.168.178.1 dev eth0 /usr/sbin/ip rule add fwmark 101 table ISP1 /usr/sbin/ip route flush table ISP2 2>/dev/null /usr/sbin/ip rule del fwmark 102 table ISP2 2>/dev/null /usr/sbin/ip route add table ISP2 192.168.1.0/24 dev wlan0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.95 metric 202 /usr/sbin/ip route add table ISP2 default via 192.168.1.1 dev wlan0 /usr/sbin/ip rule add fwmark 102 table ISP2 /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -F /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -X /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -N MARK-gw1 /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A MARK-gw1 -m comment --comment 'send via 192.168.178.1' -j MARK --set-mark 101 /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A MARK-gw1 -j CONNMARK --save-mark /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A MARK-gw1 -j RETURN /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -N MARK-gw2 /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A MARK-gw2 -m comment --comment 'send via 192.168.1.1' -j MARK --set-mark 102 /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A MARK-gw2 -j CONNMARK --save-mark /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A MARK-gw2 -j RETURN /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -j CONNMARK --restore-mark /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -m comment --comment "this stream is already marked; escape early" -m mark ! --mark 0 -j ACCEPT /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -m comment --comment 'prevent asynchronous routing' -i eth0 -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -j MARK-gw1 /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -m comment --comment 'prevent asynchronous routing' -i wlan0 -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -j MARK-gw2 /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -N DEF_POL /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A DEF_POL -m comment --comment 'default balancing' -p tcp -m conntrack --ctstate ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j CONNMARK --restore-mark /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A DEF_POL -m comment --comment 'default balancing' -p udp -m conntrack --ctstate ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j CONNMARK --restore-mark /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A DEF_POL -m comment --comment 'balance gw1 tcp' -p tcp -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -m statistic --mode nth --every 2 --packet 0 -j MARK-gw1 /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A DEF_POL -m comment --comment 'balance gw1 tcp' -p tcp -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -m statistic --mode nth --every 2 --packet 0 -j ACCEPT /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A DEF_POL -m comment --comment 'balance gw2 tcp' -p tcp -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -m statistic --mode nth --every 2 --packet 1 -j MARK-gw2 /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A DEF_POL -m comment --comment 'balance gw2 tcp' -p tcp -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -m statistic --mode nth --every 2 --packet 1 -j ACCEPT /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A DEF_POL -m comment --comment 'balance gw1 udp' -p udp -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -m statistic --mode nth --every 2 --packet 0 -j MARK-gw1 /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A DEF_POL -m comment --comment 'balance gw1 udp' -p udp -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -m statistic --mode nth --every 2 --packet 0 -j ACCEPT /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A DEF_POL -m comment --comment 'balance gw2 udp' -p udp -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -m statistic --mode nth --every 2 --packet 1 -j MARK-gw2 /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A DEF_POL -m comment --comment 'balance gw2 udp' -p udp -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -m statistic --mode nth --every 2 --packet 1 -j ACCEPT /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -j DEF_POL /usr/sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -m comment --comment 'snat outbound eth0' -o eth0 -s 192.168.0.0/16 -m mark --mark 101 -j SNAT --to-source 192.168.178.95 /usr/sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -m comment --comment 'snat outbound wlan0' -o wlan0 -s 192.168.0.0/16 -m mark --mark 102 -j SNAT --to-source 192.168.1.95 /usr/sbin/ip route flush cache (this script was made by fukawi2, I don't know how to use iptables) but I have no Internet connection... output of iptables -t mangle -nvL Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT 1254K packets, 1519M bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 1278K 1535M CONNMARK all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 CONNMARK restore 21532 15M ACCEPT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 /* this stream is already marked; escape early */ mark match ! 0x0 582 72579 MARK-gw1 all -- eth0 * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 /* prevent asynchronous routing */ ctstate NEW 2376 696K MARK-gw2 all -- wlan0 * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 /* prevent asynchronous routing */ ctstate NEW 1257K 1520M DEF_POL all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 1276K packets, 1535M bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 870K packets, 97M bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT 870K packets, 97M bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination Chain DEF_POL (1 references) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 1236K 1517M CONNMARK tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 /* default balancing */ ctstate RELATED,ESTABLISHED CONNMARK restore 15163 2041K CONNMARK udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 /* default balancing */ ctstate RELATED,ESTABLISHED CONNMARK restore 555 33176 MARK-gw1 tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 /* balance gw1 tcp */ ctstate NEW statistic mode nth every 2 555 33176 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 /* balance gw1 tcp */ ctstate NEW statistic mode nth every 2 277 16516 MARK-gw2 tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 /* balance gw2 tcp */ ctstate NEW statistic mode nth every 2 packet 1 277 16516 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 /* balance gw2 tcp */ ctstate NEW statistic mode nth every 2 packet 1 1442 384K MARK-gw1 udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 /* balance gw1 udp */ ctstate NEW statistic mode nth every 2 1442 384K ACCEPT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 /* balance gw1 udp */ ctstate NEW statistic mode nth every 2 720 189K MARK-gw2 udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 /* balance gw2 udp */ ctstate NEW statistic mode nth every 2 packet 1 720 189K ACCEPT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 /* balance gw2 udp */ ctstate NEW statistic mode nth every 2 packet 1 Chain MARK-gw1 (3 references) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 2579 490K MARK all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 /* send via 192.168.178.1 */ MARK set 0x65 2579 490K CONNMARK all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 CONNMARK save 2579 490K RETURN all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 Chain MARK-gw2 (3 references) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 3373 901K MARK all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 /* send via 192.168.1.1 */ MARK set 0x66 3373 901K CONNMARK all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 CONNMARK save 3373 901K RETURN all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0

  Read the article

• Multimaster Keepalived Configuration (Virtual IP with Load Balancing)

  - by Rad Akefirad

  Here are requirements: 1. High Availability 2. Load Balancing First configuration 1. Two linux servers have been configured with one static IP for each: 10.17.243.11, 10.17.243.12 2. Keepalived has been installed and configured with one VRRP instance to provide one virtual IP (10.17.243.10 as VIP, 10.17.243.11 as master and 10.17.243.12 as backup). 3. Everything works fine. The VIP is assigned to the master server (10.17.243.11) as long as it is up and running. As soon as it goes down, the VIP will be assigned to the backup server (10.17.243.12). 4. The problem here is all communication goes to the master server. Second configuration 1. I found active-active configuration for Keepalived which is possible by defining more than one VRRP instance. So that both server have two IPs (real 10.17.243.11 and virtual 10.17.243.10 for server #1 and real 10.17.243.12 and virtual 10.17.243.20 for server #2. 2. Everything works fine. we have two VIPs which are accessible (HA). But all communication coming to each IP still goes to one single machine (either server #1 or #2 depending on the IP). However I found some tricks on the DNS to overcome this limitation. But it's not acceptable in our case. Question: Is there any way to have one virtual IP which is assigned to both servers? By that I mean both servers are handling some part of workload (like the thing we do in web server load balancing)? By using either keepalived or some other tools? Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• Solution to route/proxy SNMP Traps (or Netflow, generic UDP, etc) for network monitoring?

  - by Christopher Cashell

  I'm implementing a network monitoring solution for a very large network (approximately 5000 network devices). We'd like to have all devices on our network send SNMP traps to a single box (technically this will probably be an HA pair of boxes) and then have that box pass the SNMP traps on to the real processing boxes. This will allow us to have multiple back-end boxes handling traps, and to distribute load among those back end boxes. One key feature that we need is the ability to forward the traps to a specific box depending on the source address of the trap. Any suggestions for the best way to handle this? Among the things we've considered are: Using snmptrapd to accept the traps, and have it pass them off to a custom written perl handler script to rewrite the trap and send it to the proper processing box Using some sort of load balancing software running on a Linux box to handle this (having some difficulty finding many load balancing programs that will handle UDP) Using a Load Balancing Appliance (F5, etc) Using IPTables on a Linux box to route the SNMP traps with NATing We've currently implemented and are testing the last solution, with a Linux box with IPTables configured to receive the traps, and then depending on the source address of the trap, rewrite it with a destination nat (DNAT) so the packet gets sent to the proper server. For example: # Range: 10.0.0.0/19 Site: abc01 Destination: foo01 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p udp --dport 162 -s 10.0.0.0/19 -j DNAT --to-destination 10.1.2.3 # Range: 10.0.33.0/21 Site: abc01 Destination: foo01 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p udp --dport 162 -s 10.0.33.0/21 -j DNAT --to-destination 10.1.2.3 # Range: 10.1.0.0/16 Site: xyz01 Destination: bar01 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p udp --dport 162 -s 10.1.0.0/16 -j DNAT --to-destination 10.3.2.1 This should work with excellent efficiency for basic trap routing, but it leaves us completely limited to what we can mach and filter on with IPTables, so we're concerned about flexibility for the future. Another feature that we'd really like, but isn't quite a "must have" is the ability to duplicate or mirror the UDP packets. Being able to take one incoming trap and route it to multiple destinations would be very useful. Has anyone tried any of the possible solutions above for SNMP traps (or Netflow, general UDP, etc) load balancing? Or can anyone think of any other alternatives to solve this?

  Read the article

• How to deploy a site with www2 or www3 prefix (Load Balancing)

  - by hajloo

  Some of the web sites started with www2 or www3 (www[n]) which is because balancing computing mentioned here at Stackoverflow ) I want to know how to do this ? and also has it any benefit or not ?

  Read the article

• IPvsadm not equally balancing on wlc scheduler

  - by davidsmalley

  For some reason, ipvsadm does not seem to be equally balancing the connections between my real servers when using the wlc or lc schedulers. One real server gets absolutely hammered with requests while the others receive relatively few connections. My ldirectord.cf file looks like this: quiescent = yes autoreload = yes checktimeout = 10 checkinterval = 10 # *.site.com http virtual = 111.111.111.111:http real = 10.10.10.1:http ipip 10 real = 10.10.10.2:http ipip 10 real = 10.10.10.3:http ipip 10 real = 10.10.10.4:http ipip 10 real = 10.10.10.5:http ipip 10 scheduler = lc protocol = tcp service = http checktype = negotiate request = "/lb" receive = "Up and running" virtualhost = "site.com" fallback = 127.0.0.1:http The weird thing that I think may be causing the problem (but I'm really not sure) is that ipvsadm doesn't seem to be tracking active connections properly, they all appear as inactive connections IP Virtual Server version 1.2.1 (size=4096) Prot LocalAddress:Port Scheduler Flags -> RemoteAddress:Port Forward Weight ActiveConn InActConn TCP 111.111.111.111:http lc -> 10.10.10.1:http Tunnel 10 0 10 -> 10.10.10.2:http Tunnel 10 0 18 -> 10.10.10.3:http Tunnel 10 0 3 -> 10.10.10.4:http Tunnel 10 0 10 -> 10.10.10.5:http Tunnel 10 0 5 If I do ipvsadm -Lnc then I see lots of connections but only ever in ESTABLISHED & FIN_WAIT states. I was using ldirectord previously on a Gentoo based load balancer and the activeconn used to be accurate, since moving to Ubuntu 10.4 LTS something seems to be different. # ipvsadm -v ipvsadm v1.25 2008/5/15 (compiled with popt and IPVS v1.2.1) So, is ipvsadm not tracking active connections properly and thus making load balancing work incorrectly and if so, how do I get it to work properly again? Edit: It gets weirder, if I cat /proc/net/ip_vs then it looks like the correct activeconns are there IP Virtual Server version 1.2.1 (size=4096) Prot LocalAddress:Port Scheduler Flags -> RemoteAddress:Port Forward Weight ActiveConn InActConn TCP B86A9732:0050 rr -> 0AB42453:0050 Tunnel 10 1 24 -> 0AB4321D:0050 Tunnel 10 0 23 -> 0AB426B2:0050 Tunnel 10 2 25 -> 0AB4244C:0050 Tunnel 10 2 22 -> 0AB42024:0050 Tunnel 10 2 23

  Read the article

• A generic error occurred in GDI+ + ABDPdf + Load Balacing

  - by jalpesh

  We are using two load balancing server for asp.net site in that we have a functionality which will create a receipt of order in pdf using abcpdf component it was working fine without load balancing server and but when we move it to load balancing server it is giving errors like. A generic error occurred in GDI. I have given full rights to directory which is used but still there problem. Does anybody have a solutions for this.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >