Fabian Arrotin wrote: >On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 10:38 -0700, Dan Trainor wrote: > > >>Chris Mauritz wrote: >> >> >> >>>Mace Eliason wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Hi, >>>> >>>>We are starting a new project, and are trying to decide the best way >>>>to proceed. We want to setup a LAMP configuration using Centos, >>>>something we have been doing in the past with great success. >>>> >>>>The question is load balancing. We antisipate the potential for the >>>>system to receive 500,000 requests/ day with in the next year. We >>>>want to plan for that extra load now as we start the project. What >>>>would you suggest for setups for multiple servers for redundancy and >>>>load balancing? >>>> >>>>I have setup MySQL replication and that works fine but what about the >>>>rest of the system. I know it is quite simple to setup with windows >>>>2003 server. >>>> >>>>Would a cluster be the way to go? Ideally we would like 2-? severs >>>>setup that are all identical and sharing the load as need be, and if >>>>one fails users would notice nothing. >>>> >>>>I have also thought of just looking for a hosting company that offers >>>>load balancing servers and not worry about it but we like to have >>>>control. >>>> >>>>Thanks for any suggestions >>>> >>>> >>>Perhaps this will help get you started: >>> >>>http://www.howtoforge.com/high_availability_loadbalanced_apache_cluster >>> >>>Cheers, >>> >>> >>Hi - >> >>FWIW, I've been toying around with this as well. Right now I'm trying >>to decide which shared storage mechanism we'll be using for the nodes >>themselves. We need to keep the data consistant across 10+ machines, >>which will be serving this content. >> >>If this hasn't been mentioned before, I've been using LVS for a while, >>with a whole lot of success. It's smart, scalable, and works quite >>well. If you're looking for an open-source load balancing and >>distribution system, I highly suggest you investigate this. >> >>If anyone wouldn't mind chiming in with some ideas, I'd greatly >>appreciate it. I'm sure others would, too, >> >>Thanks!- >>-dant >>_ >> >> > >For the backend storage, it depends what's your budget ... :o) >A minimal setup is to use nfs on a central server to host/share the same >data across all your machines ... the problem in this config is that the >nfs server becomes the single point of failure ... so why not using a >simple heartbeat solution for 2 nfs servers acting as one and uses drdb >between these 2 nodes for the replication ... >Other method is to have a dedicate san with hba in each webservers but >that's another budget ... :o) > >Just my two cents ... > > > HI, Fabian - I've been toying aroudn with both NFS and GFS, but NFS does leave me with a single point of failure. I'd rather not use something like drdb, however. I'm still researching GFS to see if it's a viable alternative for what I'm looking for. Thanks! -dant