Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 11:35:26 -0500 From: Scott Ullrich <sullrich@gmail.com> To: Kevin <k@kevinkevin.com> Cc: no name <britneyfreek@googlemail.com>, freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Question about round robin Message-ID: <d5992baf0911060835q7023ddb9mca72c4022edc72ca@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <00a501ca5efa$65640890$302c19b0$@com> References: <00a201ca5ef6$7a4f3ee0$6eedbca0$@com> <-3431979369893017739@unknownmsgid> <00a501ca5efa$65640890$302c19b0$@com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Kevin <k@kevinkevin.com> wrote: > I've searched the freebsd-* mailing list as well as gone through the hand= book regarding load balancing w/ PF (http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/pools.ht= ml) and found no mention of any kind of inherent availability checks or any= thing along those lines. Have I missed something? > > Seems that all the options (bitmask, random, source-hash, round-robin) pr= ovide for different ways to distribute traffic to the servers, but if a ser= ver dies or becomes unresponsive it would compromise the pool in itself. Mo= st other load balancing solutions such as LVS can be incorporated with keep= alived to allow for status checking. > > I would love to know anyone who may have implemented a solution like that= with PF + round robin. Take a look at relayd and slbd. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d5992baf0911060835q7023ddb9mca72c4022edc72ca>