13 Apr
2005
13 Apr
'05
12:55 a.m.
So, you found the budget? Or was the pain just big enough...
Let's see what we can do. It will take some time, I assume, so meanwhile...
g-)
Matt Schulte wrote:
Heheh, we may actually test one of those F5network
switches...i f we
don't come up with a fairly painless, bugfree, and most importantly
supportable solution. :-) I cannot code therefore I would be useless,
but I can safely say learning C is on my to-do list. We may however be
willing to contribute to a bounty, at the very least I'd be more than
happy to test :D
Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: Greger V. Teigre [mailto:greger@teigre.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 5:29 AM
To: Matt Schulte; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Load Balancing via UltraMonkey/ldirectord
:-) Yes, layer 7 switch is of course nice. But then again, you need to
make
sure that you can price your services where people will buy them...
I wonder whether it is possible to gather some people interested in
this and
get something started on the development side. AFAIK, LVS struggles
with
other UDP services too, so a ipvs UDP content analyzer would probably
be of
interest. I looked at the source code and I think the most difficult
thing
would be to extend the ipvs framework to allow a module to peak into
the
packet (and not only the header). I don't know what kind of
performance penalties you get either.
I have seen several people being willing to sponsor development. We
could
hire somebody at http://www.rentacoder.com/ ;-)
g-)
Matt Schulte wrote:
Yah I noticed the other post after I posted mine,
I don't see how it
would easily be possible to address the sticky issue. It would
require
making a SIP aware proxy of sorts, which is a bit
out of my
abilities.
Has anyone been able to address this issue? Of
course a layer7 switch
would do wonders and eliminate the need for all this, but who has
that
money laying around :D
I've done a little research (google) and noticed people mentioning it
when talking about LVS, one guy said he was going to write a module
but posted nothing more. That would be pretty slick.
Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: Greger V. Teigre [mailto:greger@teigre.com]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 3:04 AM
To: Matt Schulte; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Load Balancing via UltraMonkey/ldirectord
If you see another thread (using the rather intuitive subject: Re:
[Serusers] more usrloc synchronization), you will see discussions on
using LVS in general. AFAIK, which high availability solution to use
for LVS, is
more based on your personal preferences, UltraMonkey is probably a
safe choice. Anyway, you will need to address the "stickiness"
issue. g-)
Matt Schulte wrote:
>> foresee is the possibility that loose routing would hit the wrong
>> server. Just wanted to ask around before I wasted time trying it out
>> for myself :-) Thanks
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Serusers mailing list
>> serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers Has anyone attempted to load balance SER using
Ultramonkey/ldirectord?
> I've noticed all it does is pretty much NAT and send requests
> accordingly, the trick I guess would be the NAT part. If the SIP
> headers = myself, would there really be any issues? One problem I
> can