From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Nov 14 11:41:16 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from www.stonehenge-net.com (dsl081-053-198.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.53.198]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3568C37B405 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 11:41:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (ben@localhost) by www.stonehenge-net.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fAEJbUl43885 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 11:37:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ben@stonehenge-net.com) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 11:37:29 -0800 (PST) From: ben X-X-Sender: ben@www To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: load balancing solution? Message-ID: <20011114112833.G43859-100000@www> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG i need a quick load balance solution that will provide 1 ip on the front end and round robin balancing on the back end for 2 to 4 servers, as a proof of concept for a project ( and as a way to sneak FreeBSD into the workplace :) . it sounds like i might be able to build this with nat and bind... but i think i remember that ipnat would translate requests _before_ bind would see them, whicn is the opposit of the behavior i want. i looked through the ports collection, and it looks like pen does 'real' load balancing, but for this project, i actually need round-robin (trying to demonstrate that the servers on the back end successfully share their session data) dows pen also do round-robin, or does anyone know of any other quick solutions to this problem? thanks! ben To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message