[Serusers] Load Balancing via UltraMonkey/ldirectord

[Matt Schulte]

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 at teigre.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 5:29 AM
To: Matt Schulte; serusers at 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 at teigre.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 3:04 AM
> To: Matt Schulte; serusers at 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:
>> 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

>> 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 at lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers