jesus at omniti
Jun 6, 2007, 7:26 AM
Post #4 of 4
(4664 views)
Permalink
|
On Jun 6, 2007, at 10:14 AM, Ethan Daugherty wrote:
> Thanks for the quick response. That's kind of what I was afraid of...
>
> Do you know of any products that could accomplish this?
Not off the top of my head. Plenty of products will do this with 2
machines, but the peer-based juggling isn't common. You should look
at PolyServe, their product a long time ago was similar in concept to
wackamole and they might have added features that accomplish what you
want.
It's an awful hack, but if you have 6 machines... you can juggle 50
IPs on 3 of them and 50 IPs on the other 3. That would provide you
an administrative level of resource separation. Ideally, the tool
would just do this, but since it doesn't some brute force might be
useful.
> - Ethan
> btw: I enjoyed your book.
Thanks.
>
> On Wednesday 06 June 2007 10:11:05 am Theo Schlossnagle wrote:
>> I understand what you are looking to accomplish. However, that is
>> not possible with wackamole. It would require some substantial
>> algorithm changes in the way IP addresses are assigned to machines.
>>
>> On Jun 6, 2007, at 9:52 AM, Ethan Daugherty wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I'm fairly new to this list ( and wackamole in general ) so if this
>>> has been
>>> covered before please forgive me, I did look through the archives
>>> and didn't
>>> find anything on this topic.
>>>
>>> I'm curious if there is any way in wackamole to configure a group
>>> of IP
>>> addresses that should never exist on the same machine ( except
>>> perhaps under
>>> the circumstance of having no other more IP's in the group than
>>> nodes to
>>> assign them to )?
>>>
>>> For instance:
>>> We have 100 Ip addresses assigned to 5 machines, those 100 IP's are
>>> really 50
>>> IP pairs that both provide a service and are load balanced
>>> upstream. It would
>>> be very helpful to let wackamole decide how to redistribute those
>>> 100 IP's
>>> between the 5 machines.
>>>
>>> IE:
>>> Website A is load balanced between 10.0.0.1 and 10.0.0.11.
>>> Website B is load balanced between 10.0.0.2 and 10.0.0.12.
>>>
>>> 10.0.0.1 and 10.0.0.2 could exist on the same machine without
>>> problem, but
>>> 10.0.0.1 and 10.0.0.11 shouldn't as that would put all the load for
>>> that
>>> particular site on a single machine.
>>>
>>> I hope that make some sense. If not please let me know and I'll try
>>> to clarify
>>> more. If this isn't possible in wackamole and you have experience
>>> with some
>>> other HA solution that would provide that type functionality please
>>> let me
>>> know.
>>> --
>>> Ethan Daugherty
>>> Linux Systems Administrator
>>> Dominion Enterprises
>>> ethan.daugherty [at] dominionenterprises
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> wackamole-users mailing list
>>> wackamole-users [at] lists
>>> http://lists.backhand.org/mailman/listinfo/wackamole-users
>>
>> // Theo Schlossnagle
>> // Principal [at] OmniT: http://omniti.com
>> // Esoteric Curio: http://www.lethargy.org/~jesus/
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> wackamole-users mailing list
>> wackamole-users [at] lists
>> http://lists.backhand.org/mailman/listinfo/wackamole-users
>
>
>
> --
> Ethan Daugherty
> Linux Systems Administrator
> Dominion Enterprises
> ethan.daugherty [at] dominionenterprises
>
> _______________________________________________
> wackamole-users mailing list
> wackamole-users [at] lists
> http://lists.backhand.org/mailman/listinfo/wackamole-users
// Theo Schlossnagle
// Principal [at] OmniT: http://omniti.com
// Esoteric Curio: http://www.lethargy.org/~jesus/
_______________________________________________
wackamole-users mailing list
wackamole-users [at] lists
http://lists.backhand.org/mailman/listinfo/wackamole-users
|
