I know most people use pound, but has anyone tried using ultramonkey as a load balancing solution between a cluster of mongrels and lighttpd? Thanks, Ray
on 2007-01-10 08:50
on 2007-01-10 10:21
I would *highly* recommend checking out nginx. It's even lighter and faster than lighty, *and* has a good balancer built in. -- -- Tom Mornini, CTO -- Engine Yard, Ruby on Rails Hosting -- Reliability, Ease of Use, Scalability -- (866) 518-YARD (9273)
on 2007-01-10 12:27
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:50:15 +0100 Raymond O'connor <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > I know most people use pound, but has anyone tried using ultramonkey as > a load balancing solution between a cluster of mongrels and lighttpd? > Thanks, > Ray > There is also pen, http://siag.nu/pen Dominic
on 2007-01-10 15:47
Is there any benefit to using one of these load balancers over just using lighttpd's mod_proxy to distribute load to Mongrel processes?
on 2007-01-10 17:36
Dominic Marks wrote: > There is also pen, http://siag.nu/pen pen absolutely rocks from a performance and reliability perspective. Takes a bit of work to set up properly though, especially if you want unified access logs with original client IP preserved.
on 2007-01-10 17:55
For our setup, the plan was to have the load balancing sw on two seperate boxes (one being a failover) that will loadbalance among several lighty/mongrel boxes. That leads to my next question, does nginx's load balancing have any failover/monitoring so the other load balancer can take over? Under my limited knowledge, it seems nginx's load balancing is part of the webserver itself, not something I can easily pull out of the webserver part and stick on its own server. My boss seems to like ultra monkey for whatever reason, but I couldn't find one mention about anyone using it with an RoR setup, so I think we may go with pound or pen instead. Versus pound/pen is one better at doing failover/monitoring than the other? Thanks again, Ray
on 2007-01-10 18:22
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:35:08 -0000 "Sheldon Hearn" <email@example.com> wrote: > > > Dominic Marks wrote: > > There is also pen, http://siag.nu/pen > > pen absolutely rocks from a performance and reliability perspective. I found it would crash under certain circumstances. In my case loading a page with several hundreds images linked into it. Of course, having such a page is not such a great idea anyway! > Takes a bit of work to set up properly though, especially if you want > unified access logs with original client IP preserved. I patched it to insert an additional HTTP header with the client IP in the forwarding request as a work around. I was logging the client IP at the application level rather than server log though. If anyone wants the patch E-Mail me and I'll see if I can find it. Dominic