Load Balance with health checks software?]

This is a discussion on Load Balance with health checks software?] within the IPFilter forums, part of the System Security and Security Related category; Just looking at a "software" option to having a L4 load-balancer/health check router/switch and exploring ...


Go Back   Usenet Forums > System Security and Security Related > IPFilter

FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 02-03-2005
Jorgen Lundman
 
Posts: n/a
Default Load Balance with health checks software?]



Just looking at a "software" option to having a L4 load-balancer/health check
router/switch and exploring the possibility of ipfilter.

ipfilter can already do round-robin style load-balancing, but (AFAIK) it does
not do any health-checks (or otherwise does not notice a crash and keeps sending
requests to downed server).

You can also add and remove ipnat rules dynamically by using (-r). I am unsure
if it can be done without losing current sessions?

So it would not be particularly difficult to design a piece of software that
lets you define various clusters and service health-checks, and have it add in
rules when the service is deemed "up", and remove them when "down".

Has this already been done? To ad nauseum? Is there room for one more, if done
properly? (I somewhat imagine a few people have thrown together their own
sh/perl/xx scripts to do this).

I would imagine I could potentially also add rules to "log" any RST returned
from hosts in the cluster, and react when we receive these as well as the above
service checks.

Perhaps one day "weights" could be added to the round-robin lines for potential
sensing of how busy induvidual machine are, but this can not currently be done?

Nor would a content sensing L4 be feasable at the moment? (Some L4 devices let
you spread load based on content. Like with HTTP, send any image/cgi query to a
different cluster to that of static html server cluster). I think I can look at
data inside packets with some advanced ipfilter rules, but it doesn't feel very
realistic. Generally you can achieve the same seperation with some DNS work and
seperate VIP.

I wouldn't mind spending the day or so it would take me to write this, but if it
is of little use, or already been done far too many times, it could be a waste
of everyone's time.

Comments?

Lund

--
Jorgen Lundman | <lundman@lundman.net>
Unix Administrator | +81 (0)3 -5456-2687 ext 1017 (work)
Shibuya-ku, Tokyo | +81 (0)90-5578-8500 (cell)
Japan | +81 (0)3 -3375-1767 (home)

Reply With Quote
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0