Subject: Re: carp or failover/load-balancing
To: Manuel Bouyer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Joel CARNAT <email@example.com>
Date: 03/30/2005 20:04:26
On the last episode (Wed, 30 Mar 2005 19:27:11 +0200), Manuel Bouyer <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 11:30:17PM +0200, Joel CARNAT wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I can't find any carp reference on my NetBSD boxes (manpage & google).
> > so :
> > 1. do we have any carp implementation ready (expect net/ucarp) ?
> > 2. what other choice do we have to get failover and/or load-balancing (for firewalling, HTTP, SMTP services and such) ?
> ipf can do load-balencing with rdr or bimap rules (I don't remember). Maybe
> fail-over too. But I've never tried it.
yeah, I've seen the rdr/round-robin feature in pf too (sorry, I use pf on NetBSD too ;)
a question I had about that (posted on email@example.com and still not answered) is, what happens when some of the servers are down - does ipf/pf still rdr paquets to them.
I can see the same example in ipnat.conf (than in pf's doc) :
rdr le0 188.8.131.52/32 port 80 -> 184.108.40.206,220.127.116.11 port 80 tcp round-robin
What happens here when 18.104.22.168 goes down ?
Does 50% of the queries goes "host down" or is ipnat/pf smart enough to test if the host is UP before redirecting the network flow ?
,- This mail runs ------.
`--------- NetBSD/i386 -'