From owner-freebsd-net Mon Mar 22 23:52:59 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from main.piter.net (main.piter.net [195.201.22.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD21A1563D; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 23:52:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from cyril@main.piter.net) Received: (from cyril@localhost) by main.piter.net (8.8.7/8.8.7/sply) id KAA21587; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 10:52:23 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from cyril) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 10:52:23 +0300 (MSK) From: "Cyril A. Vechera" Message-Id: <199903230752.KAA21587@main.piter.net> To: gpalmer@FreeBSD.ORG, julian@whistle.com Subject: Re: clustering/load balancing Cc: cmsedore@maxwell.syr.edu, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 22 20:19:19 1999 > To: Julian Elischer > Cc: Christopher Sedore , > "'freebsd-net@freebsd.org'" > From: "Gary Palmer" > Subject: Re: clustering/load balancing > Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:18:49 -0500 > > Julian Elischer wrote in message ID > : > > so? > > I was just giving an example of load sharing using exisiting > > code. > > I probably wouldn't have A actually doing work, > > that way it'd be a hell of a lot more reliable, > > and hey, a PC is cheap..have another on standby. > > I wasn't faulting you Julian... there was a smiley firmly attached. If nothing > else, even if you remove that SPoF, you leave others (mainly between the `load > balancer' and the actual servers, unless you've figured out a way to have > redundant NIC's in your servers) heh, ok. let's think that we do not need any 'failure safe' technologies, only load balancing. in this way does 'forwarders scheme' is better than 'ARP patched'? or there are other underwater stones? Sincerely your, Cyril A. Vechera email:cyril@piter.net --------- http://sply.piter.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message