[Serusers] Load Balancing via UltraMonkey/ldirectord

[Matt Schulte]

Well, in our company we just lease all equipment. Yes granted we try
hard to keep the cost down, we figure the equipment cost is the least of
our worries. Now that doesn't mean we'd spend millions on a softswitch,
we're still a small company. :-) A layer7 switch, if you compare the
price to a softswitch, isn't that much money. The only reason we would
consider a hardware solution though at this point is because there is
literally nothing (free) software wise out there.

What we're really wanting it for is Asterisk, since asterisk doesn't
have the ability to do SRV lookups the only other alternative is
butchering the dialplan/making a script to perform redundancy to peer
with SER. With SER I was assuming use of SRV records otherwise, and for
our registered users we would again use SRV records (UA compatibility
pending :D) and hope t_replicate can perform adequately enough.

We have an SRV bounty for Asterisk, it isn't publicly posted, if anyone
is interested ;-) No one stepped up to the plate yet in the ast lists.

	Matt

-----Original Message-----
From: Greger V. Teigre [mailto:greger at teigre.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 11:55 PM
To: Matt Schulte; serusers at lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Load Balancing via UltraMonkey/ldirectord


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