Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 12:49:39 +0200 From: Feczak Szabolcs <feczo@siodigit.hu> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Failover cluster for webserver with dynamic content ? Message-ID: <1113994179.19383.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1113945712.81725.8.camel@zappa.Chelsea-Ct.Org> References: <20050419164003.518F716A507@hub.freebsd.org> <1113945712.81725.8.camel@zappa.Chelsea-Ct.Org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On k, 2005-04-19 at 17:21 -0400, Paul Mather wrote: > to what you describe using geom_gate for the remote component. See > ggated(8) and ggatec(8) for how to set up an use a geom_gate provider. > Note that the geom_mirror + geom_gate synchronisation would be one-way. Bad luck, I would like to have something that creates a layer over the two volume of the machines, and when this higher layer accessed both execute the requested operation. Anyway one step further, my question is How can I create a failover cluster with two machines for a freebsd webserver with dynamic content runing apache with php, and postgresql. I read about CARP, but more experienced people advised me to use DNS-LB since its more reliable with service type pings (HTTP GET) than simple is the machine answers for TCP SYN. They made a point with that to me. Im trying to syncronize the postgresql database with Slony, no luck yet, all the examples I found describing master and slave on the same machine. I got slony communicate between the two, but on updates nothing happens on the slave. I access the master on unix socket, maybe other type of access needed .. hm I will see If on failure the switching is done with DNS-LB and the SQL is in sync Im nearly OK, but since I have file uploads on the webserver as well, I need a shared volume which available to both of them and after one is out the other still has access to the data. Maybe Im complettly wrong I have no clear ideas about what happens when this ... and what happens whan that ... scenarios All I want is a higher availability with two machines than one and without messing up the consistency of the data of course. Im not after chasing nearly 100% ... the policy/expectation is if one fails the other should automatically continue the serving data (nearly there) where the other stopped. If anyone did something like that, and aware of some solution without buying expensive HA hardware, please share us. Hope this is possible at all.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1113994179.19383.28.camel>