Subject: Re: carp or failover/load-balancing
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jorgen Lundman <email@example.com>
Date: 03/31/2005 09:48:18
not sure you are allowed to shamelessly plug your own tools, but if you are
happy with ipf's round-robin, I would like to give special attention to my
"l4ip" tool http://www.lundman.net/unix/l4ip.php which does the health check,
and adding/removing of ipf RDR rules dynamically.
I want to do a cgi wrap around it for simply GUI/remote administration, but I
have yet to find someone to aid with that. :)
Joel CARNAT wrote:
> 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:
>>>I can't find any carp reference on my NetBSD boxes (manpage & google).
>>>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 126.96.36.199/32 port 80 -> 188.8.131.52,184.108.40.206 port 80 tcp round-robin
> What happens here when 220.127.116.11 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 ?
Jorgen Lundman | <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Unix Administrator | +81 (0)3 -5456-2687 ext 1017 (work)
Shibuya-ku, Tokyo | +81 (0)90-5578-8500 (cell)
Japan | +81 (0)3 -3375-1767 (home)