[Serusers] Load Balancing via UltraMonkey/ldirectord

[Alex Vishnev]

Darren,

Can you expand a little bit on your idea? What do you mean by SER
replication? Also, testing your proxies for monitoring with sipsack is I a
good idea. Have you implemented this already? Can you share it?

Alex

-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-bounces at iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces at lists.iptel.org] On
Behalf Of Darren Sessions
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 11:35 AM
To: serusers at lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Load Balancing via UltraMonkey/ldirectord

Why not use a heartbeat setup with a shared IP address? You could replicate
registration data on the unique ip addresses on each server using SER's
replication, and use a shared IP address to talk to the end points (which
also eliminates problems with symmetric nats as they're always talking to
the same IP address).

It would be a simple matter to use SIPsak to monitor the SIP responsiveness,
and shell script/perl script to monitor the actual processes on each server.
If anything went south, you could initiate failover of the shared ip
address.

Seems like it'd be a lot less expensive than an F5 setup.

Just a thought.. 

 - Darren


On 4/13/05 6:00 AM, "serusers-request at lists.iptel.org"
<serusers-request at lists.iptel.org> wrote:

> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 06:55:00 +0200
> From: "Greger V. Teigre" <greger at teigre.com>
> Subject: Re: [Serusers] Load Balancing via UltraMonkey/ldirectord
> To: "Matt Schulte" <mschulte at netlogic.net>, <serusers at lists.iptel.org>
> Message-ID: <009c01c53fe4$f33e31c0$6400a8c0 at MrMaster>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
> 
> 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


_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers at lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers