leus at epublish
Aug 21, 2002, 1:55 PM
Post #1 of 2
(738 views)
Permalink
|
|
mod_backhand success, and questions
|
|
Hi all. I have been able to backhand everything here, on my production
cluster. First, let me explain the scenario.
We are providing statistics to web sites using the common approach of
sending a small GIF image with lots of parameters, set cookies, and then
putting every bit of info we can in a database. Right now, we are
serving more than 10 million hits a day.
Our setup is the following:
- CoyotePoint Equalizer
- 11 machines (linux, apache, mod_backhand, fast cgi)
We are using only two machines to act as moderators, and the rest are
our second tier. So far, so good, we saw a marginal improvement on
performance without any advanced configuration scheme.
-------------------------------------------------------------
<Location /cert/hit>
SetHandler fastcgi-script
Backhand removeSelf
Backhand byAge
Backhand byRandom
Backhand byLogWindow
Backhand byLoad
</Location>
<IfModule mod_backhand.c>
BackhandConnectionPools off
UnixSocketDir /var/backhand/backhand
MulticastStats 192.168.10.31:4445,1
AcceptStats 192.168.10.0/24
</IfModule>
<Location "/backhand/">
SetHandler backhand-handler
</Location>
-------------------------------------------------------------
For the other machines, config is very similar, except in the
"MulticastStats" part, because we have added two multicaststats
directives, pointing to the two moderators:
-------------------------------------------------------------
<IfModule mod_backhand.c>
BackhandConnectionPools off
UnixSocketDir /var/backhand/backhand
MulticastStats 192.168.10.31:4445,1
MulticastStats 192.168.10.32:4445,1
AcceptStats 192.168.10.0/24
</IfModule
-------------------------------------------------------------
First, the questions:
a) I don't want that the moderator A do balancing to moderator B; how to
avoid this? (we have done it by forcing multicasting to itself)
b) We need to keep the original IP address, because is part integral of
our service (remember, we do stats). I found in early tests that if we
don't add backhand directives to every machine in the second tier, we
lose the original IP address (gets swapped with BackHandProxied). Is
this behaviour by design? Right now, we solved this by adding Backhand
directives to every machine, but it doesn't seems right, given these
machines aren't balancing anything (in fact, they are unreachable from
outside)
Second, my impressions:
For our kind of work, backhand looks like bless. In our previous setup,
we had every machine responding to requests, with lots of performance
issues. Right now, our two moderators are managing the incoming traffic
pretty well, and the CPU load and memory usage in all other machines is
nice and steady. We have solved a problem, and now we are going to use
it to do more interesting stuff by using some custom made candidacy
functions. I asked about it a couple of weeks ago, and the feedback was
very useful.
Now we have completed a first step, and are very pleased with the
results. Congratulations to the gang, keep going with this excellent job.
Regards,
--
Leonardo Herrera L.
mailto:leus [at] epublish
|
