|
Just another thought, you might
want to change from php to modperl. Modperl
handles higher loads better. Barring that,
bite the bullet and recode your application
as an apache module written in C. You can't
get any faster than building your applications into
the web server.
I know this has nothing to do with your question, just
a friendly suggestion :)
Johan Isacsson wrote:
>
> Hello Roberto,
>
> > Is impressions==connection requests?
>
> An impression is a loaded banner, and we have one banner per page (that we
> count). So in our case one impression is one pageview.
> We have about 12 hits (requests) per pageview, so that would be 25M+(12*25M)
> = 325 million hits/requests per month.
>
> > You might have a look at http://www.linux-ha.org and check out the
> > links on the first page about Filesystem technologies.
>
> I will, thanks :)
>
> > > 1. Is the redirect approach working (well) on 2.4, and if so,
> > are there any
> > > drawbacks using that method compared to the hidden arp method in 2.2?
> >
> > Yes, it is working well, no, no drawbacks so far, but the difference is
> > not redirect <-> hidden arp for 2.4.x <-> 2.2.x. The difference IMHO is
> > the place where the LVS hooks in and the trespassing of the chains. BTW,
> > why do you intent to change to 2.4.x if you setup is working fine? And I
> > reckon that you run your db on a Linux box with fast SCSI controller or
> > even a RAID. If so I would not advise you to use the 2.4.x kernel since
> > there are still some issues not solved with RAID and SCSI at least back
> > here, where I still try to get it running for more then 10 hours. :(
>
> Thanks for the info, yes we're running SCSI on the realservers and i haven't
> checked if the driver is working on 2.4 yet, so it might be a good idea to
> wait for a while.
>
> > Try it with the lblcr scheduler. Although I actually don't understand
> > your setup correctly, honestly. Maybe someone else understands it better
> > than me or you could draw a sketch.
>
> Ok, here's another attempt:
>
> Location 1 (4 Mbit max)
>
> --------- Lan
> | FS 1 |---
> --------- | -----------
> ---| Router1 |
> --------- | -----------
> | FS 2 |--- |
> --------- |
> Internet------------------
> |
> |
> ------------
> ---| Router 2 |
> | ------------
> -------- |
> | VFS1 |----|
> -------- |
> | Lan
> -------- |
> | FS 3 |----|
> -------- |
> |
> -------- |
> | FS 4 |----
> --------
>
> Router 1 has a limit of 4 Mbit
> VFS1 is the virtual file server
> FS1-4 are the real file servers
>
> Basicly what i want is to load balance between the file servers but put all
> load on FS1 & FS2 until the bandwidth usage on Router 1 is up at 4Mbit, then
> start using FS3 & FS4 aswell. The load on this cluster is rapidly changing
> so it won't work to put static weigths in the scheduler (at low traffic
> Location 1 would be able to take all traffic but at high traffic 4Mbit isn't
> enough).
> I figure i could have a cron job get the bandwidth usage out of router 1 and
> adjust the wieghts for FS3&4 in some way...
> Comments are very welcome :)
>
> > No problem, I hope I could give you some more information than you already
> > had.
>
> Yepp, thanks for your answer :)
>
> Regards,
> Johan Isacsson
> MGON
>
> _______________________________________________
> LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> or go to http://www.in-addr.de/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
--
Mark Steele
Vice president research and development
Inet Technologies Inc.
msteele@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
010110010110111101110101001000000110000101110010011001010010000001100100011101010110110101100010
|
