Running multiple perlbal instances

[Russ Garrett]

[CCd to the list because I think it would be interesting for other people]

Our LVS boxes are separate pristine machines which don't do anything 
other than LVS (they balance quite a lot of other stuff), then we have 3 
machines dedicated to perlbal.

For various reasons it's inadvisable to run target servers on the same 
box as LVS - since LVS is a thin layer at kernel level you end up with 
lots of issues - it is well worth having separate machines if you're 
using LVS.

Russ

Kevin Olson wrote:
> I’m curious, what kind of LVS set up do you have? Is each perlbal 
> instance on a separate box, or are you doing some kind of additional 
> virtualization within the boxes running perlbal.
>
>
> On 1/29/08 3:19 PM, "Russ Garrett" <russ at last.fm> wrote:
>
>     Kevin Olson wrote:
>     > Does anyone have some advice on running multiple perlbal
>     instances on one
>     > multi-cpu box? We're getting to the point where one perlbal
>     instance is
>     > handling 30,000-45,000 connections/min and load is hitting 1.00.
>     >
>     > An easy solution would seem to be to have different perlbal instances
>     > handling different vips, but that introduces extra config files
>     and what
>     > not. It'd be nice to simply round-robin load balance between the two
>     > instances, without adding another full blown load balancer to the
>     mix.
>     We currently have 10 perlbal instances running, which are
>     load-balanced
>     by one machine (actually a heartbeat pair) running LVS. Our config is
>     managed centrally with a couple of subsitution variables and a
>     make script.
>
>     If you assign one perlbal instance per vip, it might work well to
>     start
>     with, but if one of your vips gains enough traffic to swamp one
>     perlbal
>     instance, you're still going to need a higher level of load-balancing.
>     --
>     Russ Garrett
>     Last.fm Ltd.
>     russ at last.fm
>
>