Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 17:45:51 +0100 From: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Cc: no name <britneyfreek@googlemail.com> Subject: Re: Question about round robin Message-ID: <200911061745.52616.max@love2party.net> In-Reply-To: <d5992baf0911060835q7023ddb9mca72c4022edc72ca@mail.gmail.com> References: <00a201ca5ef6$7a4f3ee0$6eedbca0$@com> <00a501ca5efa$65640890$302c19b0$@com> <d5992baf0911060835q7023ddb9mca72c4022edc72ca@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 06 November 2009 17:35:26 Scott Ullrich wrote: > On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Kevin <k@kevinkevin.com> wrote: > > I've searched the freebsd-* mailing list as well as gone through the > > handbook regarding load balancing w/ PF > > (http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/pools.html) and found no mention of any > > kind of inherent availability checks or anything along those lines. Have > > I missed something? > > > > Seems that all the options (bitmask, random, source-hash, round-robin) > > provide for different ways to distribute traffic to the servers, but if a > > server dies or becomes unresponsive it would compromise the pool in > > itself. Most other load balancing solutions such as LVS can be > > incorporated with keepalived to allow for status checking. > > > > I would love to know anyone who may have implemented a solution like that > > with PF + round robin. > > Take a look at relayd and slbd. I was about to say ... http://www.freshports.org/net/relayd/ -- /"\ Best regards, | mlaier@freebsd.org \ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661 X http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | mlaier@EFnet / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200911061745.52616.max>