-
January 31st, 2008, 04:07 PM
#1
Hi Alessandro,
You got our architecture setup correctly.
I am sure I didn't explain our data feeder setup properly. We initially planned to have each data feeder serve only a specific data source. As one data feeder is tied to one LS server, we did not know how to direct the client requests to a specific LS through the load balancer.
But looking at the fail-over situation, it makes sense to have all the feeders aware of all the data sources. The question is when we add more data sources and views, we are going to keep increasing the load on the data feeders and the LS kernel and if there is a way to avoid it.
Thanks,
Kal
-
January 31st, 2008, 04:43 PM
#2
Kal,
I think that means you have two "classes of service" and each user session connects to one of the two classes. That's why you initially partitioned the system into two separate subsystems. Each client would connect to one LS Server or to the other based on the client application running. Did I get it right?
By introducing fail-over, you had to mount both the data sources on both the LS Server instances, resulting in each machine handling all the data sources.
The simplest solution to avoid that would be to attach again both the LS Servers to both the data sources, but having clients of class "A" connecting only to the LS Server "A", and clients of class "B" connecting only to the LS Server "B". Only if one node breaks, all the clients (A and B) should connect to the other node. This means that a physical node should have to handle all the traffic only in case of emergency.
To achieve that, you should configure your load balancer as in option A.1 (see Clustering.pdf) as a starting point. Then you should add two more VIPs, say pusha.mycompany.com and pushb.mycompany.com. The load balancing algorithm should be configured like this: requests for pusha.mycompany.com should always go to LS Server 1, unless LS Server 1 is down; requests for pushb.mycompany.com should always go to LS Server 2, unless LS Server 2 is down. How to do that is very dependent on the load balancing appliance.
Hope that helps.
-
February 5th, 2008, 04:27 PM
#3
Thanks Alessandro!
That is what we are thinking too. i.e. adding more clusters for different data stores and directing clients to different clusters depending on the user type.
-Kal
Similar Threads
-
By dimitarn in forum General
Replies: 1
Last Post: March 29th, 2010, 06:28 PM
-
By novichenok in forum General
Replies: 1
Last Post: August 21st, 2008, 10:34 AM
-
By codingvn in forum Client SDKs
Replies: 5
Last Post: July 17th, 2008, 10:01 AM
-
By codingvn in forum Adapter SDKs
Replies: 4
Last Post: June 17th, 2008, 09:46 AM
-
By riaanj in forum General
Replies: 7
Last Post: May 30th, 2007, 01:12 PM
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:27 AM.
Bookmarks