|
Thanks for all the comments.
Just out of interest what's the spec on those machines. Did you have
multiple NIC's or just aliases? Throughput will be a major concern for
us.
TIA
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Zachariah Mully [mailto:zmully@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 14 January 2002 15:39
To: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Topology and load balancing
Tom-
If a point of reference if any help in your decision, we've been
using
a setup similar to topo #3 except with two web/app servers. Currently we
serve about 2 million hits day (most of these are images served into our
emails) off the cluster. Vmstat, even at peak times, never shows more
than 12% CPU load, and swapping is non-existant (thank you apache!). Our
application isn't extremely db intensive, nor is it session based, so
YMMV, but for sheer volume, a smaller setup will suffice.
Z
On Mon, 2002-01-14 at 10:12, Thomas Robinson wrote:
> Thanks!
>
> At present I don't think we will have so many connections. I agree
with
> Topology 3 but I'm concerned about future performance as more
> connections come in and also the Single Point Of Failure (SPOF) at the
> DB Server. Any further comments?
>
> Regards,
>
> Tom
_______________________________________________
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
|
