Message: 5 Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 06:55:00 +0200 From: "Greger V. Teigre" &lt;greger(a)teigre.com&gt; Subject: Re: [Serusers] Load Balancing via UltraMonkey/ldirectord To: "Matt Schulte" &lt;mschulte(a)netlogic.net&gt;et>, &lt;serusers(a)lists.iptel.org&gt; Message-ID: <009c01c53fe4$f33e31c0$6400a8c0@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@teigre.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 5:29 AM > To: Matt Schulte; serusers(a)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@teigre.com] >> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 3:04 AM >> To: Matt Schulte; serusers(a)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(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers