[ic] Cluster and/or load balancing question

[John Beima]

Quoting Dan Browning <dbml@kavod.com>:

> 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.

Actually Dan, I would have to disagree with that. We have ran tests on 50 sites
for three months. Running Apache & Interchange on one box and MySQL on another.
The sites ran noticably slower, than running them on one duo-processor box. To
the sum of a 7-9 second delay on many pages before they were sent out.

We have recently picked up a pure Intel server. Right down to the case. This
server came with a $12,000.00 US price tag. It is duo processor with 6 Gigs of
RAM and 4 Utlra 160 Seagate SCSI drives.

On our development server, we have one Interchange page that takes 3-4 minutes
to send to the client. I really wish I could time-build it, but it is a single
page in our custom site editor, which has several modes it can be started in,
anyways that aside. On an Idol Pentium III with 1 Gig of RAM the pages takes
close to 3 minutes before it starts to send. On the new server, it is now down
to less than 1 second.

Single processor desktop boxes with Linux on them, are not servers. AND PLEASE I
am not saying you are saying they are. Building 3 or 4 of them, still wont match
the IO of a REAL server.

I have over 200 Interchange sites running off that new server, and no one is
affected by the others. Many small sites take up a desktop box converted. So
bang for you buck is not true, when you add up how many sites can be run on that
one box.



> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> | Dan Browning, Kavod Technologies <db@kavod.com>
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "I can resist anything but temptation."
> 
> _______________________________________________
> interchange-users mailing list
> interchange-users@icdevgroup.org
> http://www.icdevgroup.org/mailman/listinfo/interchange-users
>