[Serusers] Loadbalancing / high availability

Wed Dec 8 19:55:40 CET 2004

And how do you share the contact information (REGISTER) between the ser 
servers? t_replicate?

regards,
klaus

Michael Shuler wrote:
> You mean between Asterisk and SER?  They literally share the same tables
> with each other in MySQL.  When using the ast_data patch on Asterisk it sets
> up its DB tables very similar to what SER needs and since SER allows you to
> change column names you can make the two get along quite nicely.
> 
> ----------------------------------------
> 
> Michael Shuler, C.E.O.
> BitWise Communications, Inc. (CLEC) And BitWise Systems, Inc. (ISP)
> 682 High Point Lane
> East Peoria, IL 61611
> Office: (217) 585-0357
> Cell: (309) 657-6365
> Fax: (309) 213-3500
> E-Mail: mike at bwsys.net
> Customer Service: (877) 976-0711 
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Jiri Kuthan [mailto:jiri at iptel.org] 
>>Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 2:15 AM
>>To: Michael Shuler; 'Matt Schulte'; serusers at lists.iptel.org
>>Subject: RE: [Serusers] Loadbalancing / high availability
>>
>>
>>Out of curiosity -- how do you replicate data in your 
>>database backend?
>>
>>Thank you,
>>
>>-jiri
>>
>>At 04:36 AM 12/7/2004, Michael Shuler wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I was not aware that there was a dispatcher module (I don't 
>>
>>see any docs for
>>
>>>it on the site).  
>>>
>>>
>>>The Foundry load balances the SIP messages as they come from 
>>
>>VoIP phones on
>>
>>>the Internet over the cluster of SER boxes which then 
>>
>>balance the "sessions"
>>
>>>over ast_data patched Asterisk boxes (since a "session" must 
>>
>>continuously go
>>
>>>to the same Asterisk box to maintain call state within Asterisk).  To
>>>balance the session from SER over the Asterisk boxes I am 
>>
>>using round robin
>>
>>>DNS where ast.bwsys.net actually expires every second 
>>
>>through ast0, ast1,
>>
>>>ast2, etc.  So SER does a forward("ast.bwsys.net") on the 
>>
>>initial INVITE
>>
>>>messages from the VoIP phones.  The Asterisk boxes 
>>
>>conveniently replaces
>>
>>>ast.bwsys.net with their real IP and SER uses the real IP on 
>>
>>all future
>>
>>>messages automatically until that "session" is done.  The 
>>
>>next INVITE from
>>
>>>the same VoIP phone is then put through the same round robin 
>>
>>DNS and may end
>>
>>>up on a different Asterisk server next time.
>>>
>>>
>>>----------------------------------------
>>>
>>>Michael Shuler, C.E.O.
>>>BitWise Communications, Inc. (CLEC) And BitWise Systems, Inc. (ISP)
>>>682 High Point Lane
>>>East Peoria, IL 61611
>>>Office: (217) 585-0357
>>>Cell: (309) 657-6365
>>>Fax: (309) 213-3500
>>>E-Mail: mike at bwsys.net
>>>Customer Service: (877) 976-0711 
>>>
>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Jiri Kuthan [mailto:jiri at iptel.org] 
>>>>Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 1:27 AM
>>>>To: Michael Shuler; 'Matt Schulte'; serusers at lists.iptel.org
>>>>Subject: RE: [Serusers] Loadbalancing / high availability
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What is exactly role of ServerIron when SER does load balancing?
>>>>Are you using SER's dispatcher module?
>>>>
>>>>-jiri
>>>>
>>>>At 05:37 PM 12/1/2004, Michael Shuler wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>We use a Foundry ServerIron XL and it seems to work fine.  
>>>>
>>>>We do not use SER
>>>>
>>>>>as a stateful proxy though.  SER is basically a SIP message 
>>>>
>>>>load balancer
>>>>
>>>>>across our Asterisk boxes.
>>>>>
>>>>>----------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>Michael Shuler, C.E.O.
>>>>>BitWise Communications, Inc. (CLEC) And BitWise Systems, 
>>
>>Inc. (ISP)
>>
>>>>>682 High Point Lane
>>>>>East Peoria, IL 61611
>>>>>Office: (217) 585-0357
>>>>>Cell: (309) 657-6365
>>>>>Fax: (309) 213-3500
>>>>>E-Mail: mike at bwsys.net
>>>>>Customer Service: (877) 976-0711 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>From: serusers-bounces at lists.iptel.org 
>>>>>>[mailto:serusers-bounces at lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Matt Schulte
>>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 7:42 AM
>>>>>>To: serusers at lists.iptel.org
>>>>>>Subject: RE: [Serusers] Loadbalancing / high availability
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm curious what brand load balancer you would use, 
>>
>>would it be IP
>>
>>>>>>based. We tried out a Cisco SLB and had no luck, mainly 
>>>>>>because it would
>>>>>>NAT to the servers (more trouble than it's worth?). We were 
>>>>>>thinking of
>>>>>>using a heartbeat type failover, similar to what you would do 
>>>>>>for MySQL:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://linux-ha.org/download/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Has anyone tried this method? We're more concerned 
>>
>>about the high
>>
>>>>>>availability than anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>From: E. Versaevel [mailto:erik at infopact.nl] 
>>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 7:24 AM
>>>>>>To: serusers at lists.iptel.org
>>>>>>Subject: [Serusers] Loadbalancing / high availability
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I was wondering if it is necessary for a SIP packet from a 
>>>>>>specific call
>>>>>>to always go through the same server?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>For instance, if you have a load balancer distributing 
>>>>
>>>>requests over a
>>>>
>>>>>>few servers, it is possible that an INVITE ends up on 1 
>>>>>>server while the
>>>>>>following INVITE with the credentials ends up on another, 
>>>>>>would this be
>>>>>>a problem (ie, break the authorization) or should you use 
>>>>
>>>>a SIP aware
>>>>
>>>>>>loadbalancer for this (who looks at the callid for 
>>>>
>>>>example)? Assuming
>>>>
>>>>>>the ser servers are setup to use the same userdatabase (and 
>>>>>>t_replicate
>>>>>>to eachother) the picture would be something like this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                      |
>>>>>>                --------------
>>>>>>              |loadbalancer|
>>>>>>                --------------
>>>>>>                   |
>>>>>>                   |
>>>>>>          --------------------
>>>>>>          |          |         |
>>>>>>      -------   -------   -------
>>>>>>      |     |   |     |   |     |
>>>>>>      | ser1|   | ser2|   | ser3|
>>>>>>      |     |   |     |   |     |   
>>>>>>      -------   -------   -------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If you setup the servers with the same IP as the load 
>>>>>>balancer and stop
>>>>>>them from replying to ARP requests for that IP, replying back 
>>>>>>thru a NAT
>>>>>>should not be a problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Just thinking out loud, I could use SER for the load 
>>
>>balancing and
>>
>>>>>>t_relay the packets, however that would require some 
>>>>>>tampering with the
>>>>>>VIA records (and I should use a reply to via in that case to the
>>>>>>original IP the SIP request came from, eg not the load 
>>>>
>>>>balancer) this
>>>>
>>>>>>way outgoing SIP traffic would not have to go thru the ser 
>>>>>>loadbalancer
>>>>>>again to get out, hmm, it might even be possible to use a 
>>>>
>>>>route-record
>>>>
>>>>>>header to get the packets back at the correct server...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Kind regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>E. Versaevel
>>>>>>
>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>Serusers mailing list
>>>>>>serusers at lists.iptel.org 
>>
>>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>>
>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>Serusers mailing list
>>>>>>serusers at lists.iptel.org
>>>>>>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>Serusers mailing list
>>>>>serusers at lists.iptel.org
>>>>>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Jiri Kuthan            http://iptel.org/~jiri/ 
>>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Serusers mailing list
>>>serusers at lists.iptel.org
>>>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>>
>>--
>>Jiri Kuthan            http://iptel.org/~jiri/ 
>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> serusers at lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> 
> 