| ↑back Search ←Prev date Next date→ Show only urls | (Click on time to select a line by its url) |
| Who | What | When |
|---|---|---|
| *** | lyarick2 has joined #arpnetworks | [06:26] |
| ........................... (idle for 2h10mn) | ||
| lyarick2 | anyone have advice for a load-balanced dns config?
Specifically, I have an elasticsearch cluster, instead of selecting nodes at random on the clients, would like to have then connect to head and get redirected i've done similar with HAProxy — just curious if there are better ways | [08:36] |
| although I think ES might do it automagically, so I guess I should look that up… | [08:45] | |
| ......................................................... (idle for 4h44mn) | ||
| mercutio | haproxy is probably not a terrible way to go | [13:29] |
| ............... (idle for 1h13mn) | ||
| mjp_ | redirected based on what criteria? | [14:42] |
| *** | nclee has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
ncleex2 has joined #arpnetworks | [14:44] |
| mercutio | he said load, so i suspect based on load average or average time to complete requests or such
but i suppose it could just be round-robin or such dns based load balancers aren't very good at balancing normally. | [14:52] |
| lyarick2 | mostly failover | [14:52] |
| mercutio | relayd on openbsd works easy for failover. | [14:53] |
| lyarick2 | I read up on it, ES does all the internal routing for the request to optimize the queries | [14:53] |
| mercutio | but haproxy is likely to have higher performance. | [14:53] |
| lyarick2 | higher performance how?
one thing is the cluster/clients are on the same network, so there's some advantage to spreading the network traffic too | [14:54] |
| mercutio | well relayd isn't really optimised for performance.
depending on level of complexity you want there are multiple ways to go for configuration. like the most complicated load balancing way is to just route traffic to the right server who then bypasses the load balancer to send traffic out to the net. but that is also the most complicated i've never had performance issues load balancing at layer 7 though | [14:55] |
| lyarick2 | Yeah this wouldn't be internet facing | [14:57] |
| mercutio | http://blog.haproxy.com/2011/07/29/layer-4-load-balancing-direct-server-return-mode/ | [14:58] |
| lyarick2 | originally we are co-locating with a mapreduce type setup | [14:58] |
| mercutio | that's the complicated high performance way. | [14:58] |
| lyarick2 | but ES doesn't like that at all, it wants the machines to itself
ok great, thanks for the link so anyway, connecting to $(/bin/hostname) isn't going to work anymore ;-) | [14:59] |
| ........................ (idle for 1h55mn) | ||
| mercutio | it's curious that whatsapp is going free | [16:54] |
| ................................. (idle for 2h44mn) | ||
| *** | up_the_irons has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 250 seconds) | [19:38] |
| ...... (idle for 27mn) | ||
| up_the_irons has joined #arpnetworks
ChanServ sets mode: +o up_the_irons | [20:05] | |
| up_the_irons | mercutio: wasn't whatsapp always free? I never had to pay | [20:09] |
| mercutio | nah it was $1 or something
not a lot but it was free for a year, i got a message saying that it was extended. | [20:09] |
| up_the_irons | i
i c | [20:10] |
| mercutio | it maybe because you were early user?
https://www.whatsapp.com/faq/en/iphone/30060258 they haven't updated their web page it looks like, but it seems that some users had to pay $0.99 to download it and got it for free after, and others paid $0.99/year after first year free. | [20:11] |
| up_the_irons | ah ok | [20:24] |
| .......... (idle for 49mn) | ||
| *** | lyarick2 has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving.) | [21:13] |
| ↑back Search ←Prev date Next date→ Show only urls | (Click on time to select a line by its url) |