[ic] Cluster and/or load balancing question

[interchange-users@icdevgroup.org (Dan Browning)]

At 09:04 AM 7/15/2002 +0200, you wrote:
>Dan Browning wrote:
>....
>
>>>>There are more that do that as well, just not people that are
>>>>on the list.
>>>
>>>
>>>Dear Mike,
>>>
>>>did you have a white paper to use IC in a cluster with oder without 
>>>SQL-Server?
>>>
>>>Thanks!
>>>
>>>Joachim
>>
>>I've thought of writing one, since it is really quite simple (well, for 
>>IC's part anyway -- clusters in general are often non-intuitive).
>>However, the thought hasn't yet turned into action as yours is the first 
>>query I've seen in a few months.
>
>Dan,
>
>are you so kind to tell me or us a short summary of your experience with 
>IC in a cluster, if you have a little bit time?
>
>Thank you!
>
>Joachim

I think clustering is great.  Two medium boxes are about as expensive as 
one *big* box, and you get more performance for the dollar, not to mention 
the SPOF decreases some.  I went with LVS and IP affinity (so I could load 
balance SSL connections as well), and some other program that notifies my 
cell via email anytime a server goes down.

I haven't clustered the database yet, but if I did I would probably try 
DBI::Multiplex (I think that's what its called) first.  As far as 
Interchange fits in, everything went great except for the CPAN 
CounterFile.pm module used by Interchange isn't NFS-safe yet (i.e. doesn't 
use fcntl locks).  However, it hasn't yet caused any problems for us; 
although I suppose if it did, it could be hacked to support fcntl.


+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Dan Browning, Kavod Technologies <db@kavod.com>
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I can resist anything but temptation."