10 Apr
2005
10 Apr
'05
8:02 p.m.
Alex,
How does a forking proxy help when dealing with virtual IP addresses?
Perhaps I don't quite understand what you mean by a "forking proxy" but it
appears you'd have one "main" proxy that basically hands off requests to
others? Right?
If so, what happens if the "main" proxy crashes? All customers experience a
service outage.
LVS is a very valid approach to achieving 99.999% uptime from a service
perspective.
Regards,
Paul
On Apr 10, 2005 10:49 AM, Alex Vishnev <avishnev(a)optonline.net> wrote:
Hello All,
I wanted to join this thread as it seems as a very interesting
discussion. I have been monitoring for some time now. I am not quite sure if
I this has been discussed before, but has anyone considered forking proxy
instead of load balancer? One thing I am not very clear on, is what
problem you are trying to resolve. Are you concerned that if sipuaregisters with
sip-01/mysql-01 then LVS sending the next request to
sip-02/mysql-02 without the second knowing what to do? Sorry, if this has
been already discussed.
Alex
11 Apr
11 Apr
8:39 a.m.
New subject: [Serusers] still no help - usrloc synchronization
Alex,
Yes, the issue describe: stickiness, is important. The big problem is that pure IP-based
load balancing does not work as there are two parties in a call. You may well end up with
messages from A going to server 1 and messages from B going to server 2. So, you need
another way to make sure that all messages in one call is handled correctly. Here Call-Id
is useful.
A SIP (forking) proxy, the Paul (and I), interpret you is nothing more than an
application level load balancer. And as Paul points out, you have the same problems (load
balancer redundancy). In addition, for large installations, the application level load
balancer will become a bottle-neck. Then you have maintenance, stability, etc and using a
well-proven high-availability load balancer seems very appealing (like LVS). You have
mainly two problems: Make sure all SER servers present the public load balancer IP address
(done by using record_route_preset() and creating a bogus virtual adapter with the public
IP) and stickiness in balancing algorithm
Or did you have another approach in mind?
g-)
---- Original Message ----
From: Java Rockx
To: Alex Vishnev
Cc: kramarv(a)yahoo.com ; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 08:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Serusers] still no help - usrloc synchronization
Alex,
How does a forking proxy help when dealing with virtual IP addresses?
Perhaps I don't quite understand what you mean by a "forking proxy"
but it appears you'd have one "main" proxy that basically hands off
requests to others? Right?
If so, what happens if the "main" proxy crashes? All customers
experience a service outage.
LVS is a very valid approach to achieving 99.999% uptime from a
service perspective.
Regards,
Paul
On Apr 10, 2005 10:49 AM, Alex Vishnev <avishnev(a)optonline.net> wrote:
Hello All,
I wanted to join this thread as it seems as a very interesting
discussion. I have been monitoring for some time now. I am not quite
sure if I this has been discussed before, but has anyone considered
forking proxy instead of load balancer? One thing I am not very clear
on, is what problem you are trying to resolve. Are you concerned that
if sipua registers with sip-01/mysql-01 then LVS sending the next
request to sip-02/mysql-02 without the second knowing what to do?
Sorry, if this has been already discussed.
Alex
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
7175
days inactive
7176
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Greger V. Teigre -
Java Rockx