Re: LVS, load balancing, and stickness was ==> Re: [Serusers] moreusrloc synchronization

With regards to stickiness: Have you looked at ktcpvs? SIP is an "http-like" protocol and I'm pretty sure that you can use the http-based regex hashing to search for Call-Id. If you cannot use it right out of the box, I'm pretty sure the modifications are minimal. The user location problem: With a cluster back-end, I also only see save_memory() as the only option. g-) > "Greger V. Teigre" <greger(a)teigre.com> wrote: >> Greger, thanks a lot. >> The problem with load balancer is that replies goes to the wrong >> server due to rewriting outgoing a.b.c.d . BTW, as Paul pointed, if >> you define some dummy interface with Virtual IP (VIP), there is no >> need to rewrite outgoing messages (I tested this a little). > > > Yes, if you use LVS with direct routing or tunneling, that is what > you experience. > ===Of course. That why I implemented small "session" stickness. > However, it causes additional internal traffic. > > What I described was a "generic" SIP-aware load balancer where SIP > messages would be rewritten and stickiness implemented based on ex. > UA IP address (or call-id like vovida's load balancer). > ====Sure, it's better solution; I think we'll go this way soon (in > our next version). > >> Why DNS approach is bad (except restricted NAT - let's say I am >> solving this)? > > Well, IMO, DNS SRV in itself is not bad. It's just that many user > clients do not support DNS SRV yet. Except that, I like the concept > and it will give you a geographical redundancy and load balancing. > ===I am trying to build the following architecture: > > DNS (returns domain's public IP)->LVS+tunneling (Virtual IP)->ser > clusters (with private IPs) > >> > >> > DB > (MySQL 4.1 cluster) > >> I guess, Paul utilizes load-balancer scenario you have described. >> Believe there are only proprietary solutions for >> "the-replies-problem". We tried Vovida call-id-persistence package, >> unfortunately it didn't work for us. > > Are you referring to the load balancer proxy? IMHO, the SIP-aware > load balancer makes things a bit messy. It sounds to me that the > LVS + tunneling/direct routing + virtual IP on dummy adapter is a > better solution. > >> In my configuration I use shared remote DB cluster (with >> replication). Each ser see it as one-public-IP (exactly the >> approach you named for SIP). May be it's good idea to use local DB >> clusters, but if you have more than 2 servers your replication >> algorythm gonna be complex. Additional problem - it still doesn't >> solve usrloc synchronization - you still have to use >> t_replicate()... > > > I'm not sure if I understand. > ===Oh, probably I expressed myself not well enough... > > So, you have 2 servers at two location, each location with a shared > DB and then replication across an IPsec tunnel?? > IMHO, mysql 3.23.x two-way replication is quite shaky and > dangerous to rely on. With no locking, you will easily get > overwrites and you have to be very sure that your application > doesn't mess up the DB. I haven't looked at mysql 4.1 clustering, > but from the little I have seen, it looks good. Is that what you > use? > > ===We have 2 or more servers with MysQL 4.1 virtual server (clusters > balanced by LVS). We use MySQL for maintaining subscribers' > accounts, not for location. User location is still in-memory only > so far. I am afraid I have to switch to ser 09 in order to use > save_memory (thanks Paul!) and forward_tcp() for replication. > >> With regard to t_replicate() - it doesn't work for more than 2 >> servers, so I used exactly forward_tcp() and save_noreply() (you're >> absolutely right - this works fine so far); all sers are happy. Of >> course, this causes additional traffic. Interesting whether Paul's >> FIFO patch reduces traffic between sers? > > I believe Paul uses forward_tcp() and save_memory() to save the > location to the replicated server's memory, while the > save("location") on the primary server will store to the DB (which > then replicates on the DB level). > g-) > > > > > > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!