On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 9:18 PM, James Nguyen <james at callfire.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Todd <slackmoehrle.lists at gmail.com> wrote: >> Brian, >> Thanks for all of the great words here. I appreciate the detail in your >> reply. >>> >>> OK, so what's good? For my requirements, HAProxy is excellent. It >>> handled sticky sessions well, performs monitoring of each host, allows >>> dynamic adding/removing of servers, as well as maintenance modes. >>> It's very easy to install and configure. I'm using is as the backend >>> to apache that is acting as an SSL termination point. It's been very >>> high performing for us and I know a lot of big sites use it as well. >>> The only question I would have with it is handling of video, as we >>> only use it for typical web traffic, just high bandwidth stuff like >>> that. >>> >>> Also, make sure any load balancer you have is redundant and has some >>> kind of failover, using something like pacemaker, heartbeat, etc... >> >> Can you outline a bit specs for building a homemade box to run HAProxy? The >> HAProxy site is very extensive, but I did not see ideal specs at a quick >> glance. I will read in depth this weekend. >> Minimal specs and they excellent specs if you have thoughts.. I really don't >> have an idea how intensive a task like this is. Nobody needs to log into the >> box, simply use the box for this purpose. >> -Jason >> _______________________________________________ >> CentOS mailing list >> CentOS at centos.org >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >> >> > > You want two boxes that run both haproxy + keepalived. This way you > get the load balancing (HAProxy) plus the high availability > (Keepalived) using a shared virtual IP for your two boxes. You can do > maintenance on either one while traffic still remains active. > > I don't have metrics to spec out the boxes, but given your traffic > load you mentioned you don't need hefty boxes at all. Just get > yourself a box with some Gigabit interfaces which I'm sure they all > are these days. A single socket with 4 cores is more than enough. > You can probably even do with 2 cores. Someone can correct me on that > if they think the solution requires a lot of CPU. Memory wise I think > machines come with at least 4Gb these days. That should do. You can > probably both boxes for around 2k? > > You already know how much F5 or any of those guys cost per device. =) > > Best, > -- > James H. Nguyen > CallFire :: Systems Architect > http://www.callfire.com > 1.949.625.4263 > _______________________________________________ How well will this setup work as a load balancer for a couple of web servers, running cPanel / VirtualMin and a few hundred websites sharing the same IP on each server? -- Kind Regards Rudi Ahlers SoftDux Website: http://www.SoftDux.com Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com Office: 087 805 9573 Cell: 082 554 7532