From owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 28 09:21:34 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C90316A4CE for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:21:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp.datapro.co.za (mail.uskonet.com [196.3.164.40]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59C1143D46 for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:21:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from etiennel@datapro.co.za) Received: from NiNJA.datapro.co.za (ninja.datapro.co.za [196.35.242.87]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.datapro.co.za (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FE9A39D6A for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:16:19 +0200 (SAST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by NiNJA.datapro.co.za (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EED9E7193 for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:24:38 +0200 (SAST) From: Etienne Ledoux To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:24:38 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <005201c54b92$0cf63e60$0701a8c0@CIRIUM> <200504280944.12838.etienne@unix.za.org> <20050428080402.GP95908@e-Gitt.NET> In-Reply-To: <20050428080402.GP95908@e-Gitt.NET> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200504281124.38084.etiennel@datapro.co.za> Subject: Re: load balancing - email server X-BeenThere: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: etiennel@datapro.co.za List-Id: Internet Services Providers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:21:34 -0000 On Thursday 28 April 2005 10:04, Oliver Brandmueller wrote: > Hi. > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 09:44:12AM +0200, Etienne Ledoux wrote: > > I have a similar setup but I use ipf (ipnat round-robin) for my load > > balancing, on a freebsd box infront of the machines. Works just as good. > > Never looked at it; is it able to do weighting and failover? How does it > detect, if a service is down on one of the machines, so that you don't > have every third connection failing? > Well I guess it's not that fancy. It's just plain vanilla round-robin load balancing. I use other tools to detect services that die, queues not clearing etc. I also use freevrrpd for failover. There use to be a project called lload. This apparently in conjunction with ipfw could do weighted load balancing but I can't seem to find that anymore. I guess it died. I'm sure there might be similar projects though.