Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:21:00 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?xYF1a2FzeiBXxIVzaWtvd3NraQ==?= <lukasz@wasikowski.net> To: Erik Scholtz <escholtz@argonsoft.de> Cc: freebsd-cluster@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HAST - documentation unclear to me Message-ID: <4F0D547C.2010004@wasikowski.net> In-Reply-To: <4F0C73AF.5050707@argonsoft.de> References: <4F0C73AF.5050707@argonsoft.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
W dniu 2012-01-10 18:21, Erik Scholtz pisze: > 1) Only the Master can be operational, the slave is in standby (and > therefor can not be used as loadbalancing system) > > 2) Slave can be operational too, but on a write-access to the slave it > will be sent to the master, that syncs it back to the slave again (which > will cost performance but will work). > > > Does anyone of you have an idea which option (1 or 2) is the way HAST > will work? > > If option 1 is the behaviour of HAST: > Any recommendations howto loadbalance an apache webserver (with > read/write operations)? Mounting the data from a NFS-Volume costs a lot > of time (nearly 1 second slower per request) and therefor is not > recommended in an apache highperformance-setup. It's number 1. You may try to put application files on local FS (fast access) and user's uploads / files generated by application on NFS or in a database. 1 sec/req is a lot for NFS, probably you are using a slow/saturated network or didn't tweak your NFS configuration. Did you turned off mmap and sendfile in apache when using NFS? If you need performance consider changing apache to nginx, it's much faster. Also, look out these tools, you may find them useful: databases/tarantool databases/memcached net/csync2 -- best regards, Lukasz Wasikowski
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F0D547C.2010004>