[ic] Cluster and/or load balancing question

[Mike Heins]

Quoting John Beima (jbeima@palb.com):
> > 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.

Then you undoubtedly have reverse DNS resolution problems. On an 100MHz
network with a switch, it should be just as fast or faster.

-- 
Mike Heins
Perusion -- Expert Interchange Consulting    http://www.perusion.com/
phone +1.513.523.7621      <mike@perusion.com>

Being against torture ought to be sort of a bipartisan thing.
-- Karl Lehenbauer