|
Basically at this point I've actually found Ultra Monkey a lot easier to
get running as opposed to piranha. Also Ultra Monkey seems to stay with a
pure philosophy. I may be wrong but I believe Piranha in order tow ork
properly needs Red Hat's patches present in the kernel. Ultra Monkey will
work with any system that has at least ipvs patches applied.
Ultra Monkey says "here, you want this configuration, put these scripts in
lpace on these machines and use this ldirector config and it works"
TO me this is easier. I'm sure it's not for everyone and those who have
piranha working I'm sure will stay with piranha, but I also don't
understand Keith's email as if he's opposing alternative. He can't
honestly say he wasn't aware of Horms' ultra monkey...I don't know, maybe
he wasn't but it certainly was mentioned on this list before.
It's all basically the same goal. I think initially it's good to have
alternatives and then the users will decide which works best from their
experience. Whatever comes out to be the most useful then should be
worked on exclusively to make it the best.
My goal currently is to be able to present people with an alternative to
paying high amount of money for things like F5's bigIP. I was truly
amazed to learn that not only is this thing just a bsd box, but it cost
somewhere around the $15,000 mark. I think where the real "value
added" features on the bigIP is its ease of configuration, especially for
failover and configuration sync'ing, which I think would be something that
ipvs could really learn from. Paying $1400 for a nice 1U box, man you
could buy to LVS machines and like 5 real servers for the cost of 2
bigIP's.
WHat I would like to see is 1 rpm for each real server, 1 rpm for each lvs
machine, something that incorporates the monitoring and configuration
sycn'ing utils, etc and a simple config.
lvs backup machine config:
#
primary_lvs = 192.168.1.1
#
services=22,80,110,25
done.
On the real server the rpm's would basically setup the hidden arp or
Horms' ipchains redirect or the fwmark stuff whatever is cool at the
moment and real on a config that basically has the IP of the real machine.
I sure there's tons of details I'm leaving out, I realize this, but I
still thing things could be simplified a bit more and for me, Ultra monkey
is still the closest thing to it.
I also don't like how things on Piranha seem to have to be configured from
the front end like the web. Then I need php, apache installed on the lvs
machine itself and there's no reason for that. Convert that stuff into
understandable command line things and I think it would open a lot more to
some people.
Just my opinion.
Thanks
-jeremy
> I guess your email address is quite appropriate. ;-)
>
> I'm sure many of us could benefit from your insights. Please share them with
> us!
>
>
>
>
> Jeremy Hansen wrote:
> >
> > I like Ultra Monkey and I don't like Piranha. That's the difference for
> > me right now.
> >
> > -jeremy
> >
> > > Horms wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Apologies for the cross-post
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > I am happy to announce the release of Ultra Monkey 1.0.0.
> > > > Ultra Monkey is a complete open source server farm solution for linux,
> > > > providing high availability and load balancing. the current release
> > > > incorporates The Linux Virtual Server, a Heartbeat protocol and service
> > > > monitoring of both HTTP and HTTPS servers.
> > >
> > > Sounds like piranha to me. How is this different?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> > http://www.xxedgexx.com | jeremy@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > ---------------------------------------------
> >
>
--
http://www.xxedgexx.com | jeremy@xxxxxxxxxxxx
---------------------------------------------
|
