Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 12 Jul 2000 09:27:22 -0400 (EDT)
From:      Migolito <mbarnett@cais.net>
To:        Gabriel Ambuehl <gabriel_ambuehl@buz.ch>
Cc:        Luigi Rizzo <luigi@info.iet.unipi.it>, Chris Shenton <cshenton@uucom.com>, Alan Batie <batie@rdrop.com>, isp@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Re[2]: load balancing
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.4.10.10007120924040.28957-100000@nargul.systems.cais.net>
In-Reply-To: <13990135708.20000707183631@buz.ch>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
What about using a server load balancing switch out in front of both
machines.  One that does health checking, as well as managing the virtual
ip?

This would allow you to have as many machines behind one IP address that
you desire, and eliminates the possibility of contention as in other hot
spare configurations.  It also allows you to use the full potential of
both/all machines, so you can see an improvement in service as well as
reliability.


-Michael Barnett

On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Gabriel Ambuehl wrote:

> > having a machine acting as hot-backup is trivial as long as
> > you tolerate that during the crash recovery (an unlikely event)
> > all active sessions will drop and need to restart.
> 
> I'm very interested in hearing such a solution. The point where we're
> failing here is the following one: one SERVICE (not the complete box)
> of the box goes down. IP itself stays up. Now the hotspare should jump
> in and take the IP over but how are you going to protect the network
> from being screwed up by two identical IP addresses? I'd really
> appreciate it if one could explain me how to solve this problem (IP
> takeover with completely failed boxes is easy).
> 
> One possible solution would be that one: each box can do a hardware
> reset of it's twin (connect it's reset switch to the other one) but
> this one brings some rather bad security issues with it (not to
> mention the problem of not shutting down the system correctly...[1])
> If one box get's hacked, the attacker can reboot the other one possibly causing
> it to fail...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards,
>  Gabriel
> [1] With regard to this point, I'd be really interested in the
> softupdate stuff. However, I didn't manage to find any manpages about
> it. Any pointers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message
> 



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.10007120924040.28957-100000>