<html>
<body>
I am not sure why you would like to solve this problem with another
vendors box. I would suggest to look at the features of the 4G. There is
something called health check track groups.<br><br>
Out of the documentation:<br><br>
<font face="Courier, Courier" size=2>ServerIron(config)# server real r1
1.1.1.1<br>
ServerIron(config-real-server-r1) port 80<br>
ServerIron(config-real-server-r1) port ftp<br>
ServerIron(config-real-server-r1) port dns<br>
ServerIron(config-rsr1) hc-track-group 80 21 53<br><br>
</font><font face="Helvetica, Helvetica" size=2>The ServerIron now tracks
health status for ports 80, 21, and 53. If any of these ports is down
then the combined<br>
health would be marked as failed and the ServerIron will not use these
ports for load balancing traffic.<br><br>
</font>You would have to combine port 80 and port 443 in a health check
track group.<br><br>
Is not that what you are looking for?<br><br>
R, Oliver<br><br>
At 10:15 15.07.2009, Manu Chao wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">i am sure a vendor like f5 will
help you to overcome your applications limitations<br>
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 4:26 PM, David Miller
<<a href="mailto:syslog@d.sparks.net">syslog@d.sparks.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>Hi All;<br><br>
<dd>I've got a situation that I'm not sure of the best way to
handle.<br><br>
<dd>I have a pair of servers that are able to run the same
application. Caching issues make it weird though. The
application writes to the database when updates come in, and (of course)
updates its own internal cache. The servers don't update each
other, however, nor do they get updates from the database any time other
than at startup. "startup" in this case is defined as the
first query that hits tomcat.<br><br>
<dd>What this means is that I want to run off S1 as long as its
running. And if S1 becomes unavailable I want to run off S2 until I
come back and fix things. lb-pri-servers takes care of that
part.<br><br>
<dd>Here's the complicated part. The servers accept SSL as well for
user authentication. I need http and ssl to fail to S2 as a pair -
both or neither. We recently had application response issues where
S1 was very slow to respond, and http failed over but ssl did not.
This broke the customers ability to authenticate. We're terminating
ssl on the ServerIron 4G's and talking plaintext on port 443 to the
server. Apache is listening on 80 and 443 expecting
plaintext.<br><br>
<dd>We've played with boolean health checks, but I haven't implemented
them. I'm concerned about separate health checks because nothing
different is being tested. It seems like a race condition would
still exist where http would fail over, but a second later the ssl check
would pass. What we need is for a single failed health check to
down the server and fail all services over to the backup.<br><br>
<dd>If it makes things easier, we can just skip the ssl test. A
single test for http is adequate for making sure apache is responding on
the server.<br><br>
<br>
<dd>Suggestions very welcome.<br><br>
<dd>--- David<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>foundry-nsp mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:foundry-nsp@puck.nether.net">
foundry-nsp@puck.nether.net</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp" eudora="autourl">
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp</a><br><br>
</dl><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
foundry-nsp mailing list<br>
foundry-nsp@puck.nether.net<br>
<a href="http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp" eudora="autourl">
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp</a></blockquote>
</body>
<br>
</html>