|
Roberto Nibali <ratz@xxxxxx> said:
> Hello Don,
>
> > Uh. Yea I would think so. Would that be 6x4port or 3x8port NICS? Who is
doing
>
> It'll be 6x4 Quadboard NICs and ratz's make-things-work-correctly-although-
> alan-cox-does-not-believe-it patch to support such a lot of interfaces in
the
> linux kernel. Do 8 port NICs really exist that can also be used with COTS
hw?
I don't know. I was just being facetious.
> > this? In any case, this would definately be a special case. I was making a
> > point that you are fine with NAT for -most- applications.
>
> Ok, our company is doing it and I was the poor guy that had to write the
> software for it :)
>
> See, contrary to certain people's belief even bigger companies (2000+
> employees) mostly don't have a high traffic website that could saturate
> a LVS load balancer. I'm seeing this on a daily basis when I check the
> MRTG output for some of our deployed LBs. The biggest issues are the
> healthchecks which can bring a LB to its knees if developed in a wrong
> way. Application level healthchecking is extremely costly and has the
> biggest performance impact on the machine because then actually the
> machine is really doing something in user space. But then again, we have
> a huge advantage over commercial load balancers: We can run any arbitrary
> healtcheck in any programming language we like [yes, even java :)] as
> long as it is supported by linux. This makes a LVS load balancer invaluable
> for high availability. I don't specifically address you, Don, with this,
> but all the guys out here trying to figure out how for heaven's sake they
> could find out when they have to take out their webservers because the
> backend db couldn't proceed with the request due to a hardware failure
> of the securID authentication server, and all this with for example a
> CISCO WebNS load balancer.
Yes. That was the reason that the 140 machine cluster I mentioned before was
running behind BigIP, they had to run a lot of custom developed scripts for
various things, and with BSD they could do that. It's also the reason why I
prefer LVS when I can use it.
> > > It's a tradeoff between how much time the implementation manager gives
> > > you to fiddle around with the arp problem and how saturated the lb will
> > > really be when not choosing DR or TUN. Managers tend to use low cost
_and_
> > > time friendly solutions which don't mix well with the DR approach, when
> > > done the first time. I would say: Instead of pissing everyone off trying
> > > to set up DR to impress the boss, you'd rather go and impress him with
> > > a NAT setup done in 2 hours (with testing).
> >
> > Yea, unless you have a setup that needs DR. :)
>
> I'm wondering what topology really demands for DR only?
Well, as the one guy mentioned, they will have incoming on DSL A and outbound
on DSL B, so there's at least one anyway. But even so, I would think you
could still do it with NAT if the routers were configured for routing not
bridging, by setting the default gw on the director to the router on DSL B. I
think both routers would need to be on the same subnet, but the DSL provider
would probably set it up that way anyway. Even if not you could set a large
enough netmask on the director to cover them both.
(NOTE: this is a quick thought not a careful analysis, so anyone who reads
this, if I'm wrong don't worry too much)
> [People tend to generally overestimate resources when it comes to HA issues
> and that's why companies such as AC and PWC still get project assignments
in
> this field]
Maybe they are used to MS...
> Best regards,
> Roberto Nibali, ratz
>
> ps.: Could you ask Steinberg to port their software to Linux, please 8)
Ahh, Cubase. I usually use Cakewalk Pro. Truthfully, I really think we will
see these applications ported to Linux. Here in Los Angeles I saw a very cool
television commercial, I think it was on CNN financial news (I've only seen
it once, so I may have the dialog a little wrong):
----------------------
A man is running down the halls of an office with police following him. He is
saying, "they stole it all, the database servers, web servers, application
servers" (he goes on and on). Him and the police get into the server room and
it's all empty. "See" he says, "they took it all. It's all gone!". Then a
network admin walks by (eating a snack) and the man says something like "do
you have any idea who took all the servers?", and the admin says, "we got rid
of them and moved everything onto that" and points to an RS/6000 sitting in
the corner, "didn't you get the email?".
Then the announcer says something like, "IBM running Linux, the ultimate in
reliabilty".
----------------------
8') It sure made my day.
It's funny, MS is running ads showing whole rooms full of servers and saying
how their software is stable in that environment, and IBM comes along and
says all you need is one big box (which naturally won't run Windows). Soon,
CFOs will be telling CIOs to use Linux to save money. In fact, you will see
that I posted a link to linuxtoday.com about a story running in this month's
CFO magazine (yes, I subscribe to CFO magazine):
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-09-06-003-20-PS-BZ
IBM says they are going to spend 1 billion dollars on Linux in the next 3
years. They say that a proper operating system should have 10,000
applications available for it, and Linux only has 2,300, but they are big
ones.
The customer that I mentioned before (the one that will have Radware
directors) specifically told me that they wanted IBM hardware running Linux.
With IBM behind Linux, I think a lot of people will be surprised at how fast
Linux takes off in the next couple of years.
I'm also betting that once IBM has successfully gotten Linux into the server
market, that they'll then begin moving into the desktop market. They'll push
Notes against Exchange, and will finally solve the desktop crap that has been
holding Linux back from deployment on corporate desktops. They really only
need a good replacement for MS Office (Open Office will do, if IBM doesn't
hate Sun too much) and they can push desktop systems into the corporate
space.
I've been using Linux since 1994, and it's really great to have clients now
telling me that they want Linux on their servers. I do a lot of consulting
for hotels, and they are pushing for the providers of their software (like
http://www.resortdata.com ) to port to Linux. I suppose I could call
Steinberg and tell them I'm building a server room for a recording studio and
they want IBM hardware and Linux, and when will they have Cubase to run on
it? Heh.
-=dwh=-
________________________________________________________________
http://www.OpenRecording.com For musicians by musicians.
Now with free Web-Based email too!
|
