[Serusers] Load Balancing via UltraMonkey/ldirectord

[Greger V. Teigre]

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 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