From owner-freebsd-net Thu May 11 2:19:56 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mail.surf1.de (mail.Surf1.de [194.25.165.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C3F237B9C0 for ; Thu, 11 May 2000 02:19:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from alex@cichlids.com) Received: from cichlids.com (p3E9C1148.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [62.156.17.72]) by mail.surf1.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA30525 for ; Thu, 11 May 2000 10:18:18 +0200 Received: from cichlids.cichlids.com (cichlids.cichlids.com [192.168.0.10]) by cichlids.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0582AAC2C for ; Thu, 11 May 2000 11:24:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from alex@localhost) by cichlids.cichlids.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA12441 for freebsd-net@freebsd.org; Thu, 11 May 2000 11:19:46 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from alex) Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 11:19:46 +0200 From: Alexander Langer To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: load-balancing over routes and redundancy Message-ID: <20000511111946.A5785@cichlids.cichlids.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i X-PGP-Fingerprint: 44 28 CA 4C 46 5B D3 A8 A8 E3 BA F3 4E 60 7D 7F X-Verwirrung: Dieser Header dient der allgemeinen Verwirrung. Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hello! I wanted to ask if we have some kind of route-balancing stuff in the tree/kernel? Why I ask: Tonight, when I couldn't sleep (I have the best ideas in those situations), I had the following idea: - load balancing over routes. That is something, which is defenitely needed. For example, for web-server clusters you could filter out incoming SYN-flags for ONE IP (the router-machine) and then the router balances the load to a given cluster of private-addressed webservers, i.e. 10.0.0.0/8 or 192.168.0.0/16 machines or something. That needs dynamic route-handling. Question is: Will this be faster? The next concept, which belongs the above, is _much_ more interesting: It provides redundancy: Imagagine the following: You have three webservers behind that router. One crashes. Two are left. Now, the router could be used to ping the webservers every second or every 5 seconds or whatever. If the webserver doesn't response, it is supposed to have crashed or be under a too high load, and it is left out with the forwarding of the SYN-flags. That provides completely transparency. This is so nice, I love my concept. :-) You even can add more webservers without adding more IPs and other stuff. Comments? Is this worse to write? In my eyes, this could be a kernel-module with a frontend in userspace, e.g. loadcontrol(8). Then, when you add new machines, you do something like loadcontrol addmachine 192.168.0.23 80,12345 to add the machine to the cluster for the given ports 80 and 12345. Note: This are just thoughts that I had tonight. It can even be that such things already exist (or are implimented similar/better in the kernel/userland already) Alex -- I need a new ~/.sig. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message