From wvespinoza at utpl.edu.ec Thu Feb 16 01:12:50 2006 From: wvespinoza at utpl.edu.ec (wvespinoza at utpl.edu.ec) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 20:12:50 -0500 (ECT) Subject: Load Balancing on two machines only ? In-Reply-To: <43DDE265.9020700@link.net> References: <43DDE265.9020700@link.net> Message-ID: <35084.172.16.1.254.1140052370.squirrel@www.utpl.edu.ec> > Hi group, > > I have read in the documentation that the reference implementation > for load balancing requires (2 director machines, plus all other nodes). > However, due to extreme financial conditions, can I use two machines > only as both a director plus being a 2 node cluster? i.e. > machine1: director + node1 > machine2: node2 > Is this possible? > > Appreciating your help > Best Regards > --------------------------- Yes, this es posible, no problem also the machine2 can be machine2: node2 + backup_director ----------------------------------------- Este correo ha sido enviado usando el MENSAJERO-UTPL. http://www.utpl.edu.ec/mail/ From jrd154 at psu.edu Mon Feb 27 15:18:09 2006 From: jrd154 at psu.edu (Jason Dunn) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:18:09 -0500 Subject: Weights Message-ID: <44031831.6080004@psu.edu> I've set the weights of three real servers to be 100 as they all have the same specs, but after one or more gets a significant load, the weights shoot up to around 1000. This I don't have a problems with, but after the load is gone from all of the machines, the weights stay up around 1000. Is this normal? If it is, is there documentation that states why? Thanks, Jason -- Jason Dunn RHCE 803005297814115 Linux Systems Administrator CLC/TLT/ITS - Penn State University -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3196 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From peterbaitz at yahoo.com Tue Feb 28 20:30:19 2006 From: peterbaitz at yahoo.com (pb) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 12:30:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: Weights In-Reply-To: <44031831.6080004@psu.edu> Message-ID: <20060228203019.76876.qmail@web60018.mail.yahoo.com> If you're talking about using weighted (as in weighted-least-connections) load balancing, the weights themselves are relative, not absolute. Like this, lets say you set the weight of ServerA to 1, ServerB to 1, and ServerC to 2, then you use this formula: Total weight = 1 + 1 + 2 = 4 ServerA utilization = 1 / 4 = .25 ServerB utilization = 1 / 4 = .25 ServerC utilization = 2 / 4 = .5 In short, Piranha will utilize ServerC 50% of the time, while ServerA and ServerB 25% of the time. One would assume ServerC is the fastest CPU of the three. PB --- Jason Dunn wrote: > I've set the weights of three real servers to be 100 > as they all have > the same specs, but after one or more gets a > significant load, the > weights shoot up to around 1000. This I don't have > a problems with, but > after the load is gone from all of the machines, the > weights stay up > around 1000. Is this normal? If it is, is there > documentation that > states why? > > Thanks, > Jason > > > > -- > Jason Dunn > RHCE 803005297814115 > Linux Systems Administrator > CLC/TLT/ITS - Penn State University > > _______________________________________________ > Piranha-list mailing list > Piranha-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/piranha-list __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com