Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 12:29:10 +0200 From: Feczak Szabolcs <feczo@siodigit.hu> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Failover cluster for webserver with dynamic content ? Message-ID: <1114165750.22199.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1113994179.19383.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20050419164003.518F716A507@hub.freebsd.org> <1113945712.81725.8.camel@zappa.Chelsea-Ct.Org> <1113994179.19383.28.camel@localhost.localdomain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
No answer for days ... does it mean it can not be done correctly ? On sze, 2005-04-20 at 12:49 +0200, Feczak Szabolcs wrote: > 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?1114165750.22199.12.camel>