Which Directory Service do you use for your network?
None NIS LDAP LDAP + Kerberos Samba Active Directory eDirectory other ( 753 votes ~ 14 comments )
You are not currently logged in. If you do not have a user account then please consider creating one and logging in before you post your comment. This will allow you to track replies to your comment, and take part in the site much more freely.
To add your comment, fill in all the boxes below and then preview it to make sure you're happy with the way that it looks.
This is the comment you were replying to, attached to the article Simple webserver load balancing with pound:
#2 Re: Simple webserver load balancing with pound Posted by Steve (82.41.xx.xx) on Tue 20 Sep 2005 at 13:20 I guess it depends a lot on the kind of content you have as much as anything else. For static HTML pages, or images, you could either use NFS, or you could rely upon something like rsync to allow all the hosts to have their own local copy of the content - and have it kept in sync. (If you have customers uploading content you could have a dedicated host upload.example.com which will trigger a new rsync run; I'm not sure how they would respond to having to wait for the sync to complete before their content goes live though ..) Personally I've used NFS before with good success, although you're correct in saying that's another potential point of failure. With backups, and a fast mirror you could avoid losing all your content though. I guess the risk of that is a hard one to qualify. (And again it depends on whether you're looking at balancing for redundancy, or for better load handling). For database-driven sites you might find that having all the hosts in the pool connecting to a single server becomes a bottleneck, so looking at database replication is a good idea. Steve --
I guess it depends a lot on the kind of content you have as much as anything else.
For static HTML pages, or images, you could either use NFS, or you could rely upon something like rsync to allow all the hosts to have their own local copy of the content - and have it kept in sync.
(If you have customers uploading content you could have a dedicated host upload.example.com which will trigger a new rsync run; I'm not sure how they would respond to having to wait for the sync to complete before their content goes live though ..)
Personally I've used NFS before with good success, although you're correct in saying that's another potential point of failure. With backups, and a fast mirror you could avoid losing all your content though. I guess the risk of that is a hard one to qualify. (And again it depends on whether you're looking at balancing for redundancy, or for better load handling).
For database-driven sites you might find that having all the hosts in the pool connecting to a single server becomes a bottleneck, so looking at database replication is a good idea.
Steve --
Posting Format:
Inappropriate comments will be removed.
Some help on entry formatting is available
Username:
Password:
[ Advanced Login ]
Register Account
