[Catalyst] Progress bar
aaron.trevena at gmail.com
Thu Oct 25 12:29:51 GMT 2012
On 24 October 2012 17:59, Bill Moseley <moseley at hank.org> wrote:
> PerlBal (as in this old post:
> http://lists.danga.com/pipermail/perlbal/2005-November/000138.html ) can do
> this as well.
> I wonder about the topology. We used to run with Perlbal (and heartbeat
> and IP failover) in front of a pool of web servers. We now run with
> hardware load balancers in front of a pool of web servers.
> The load balancer does make it easy to adjust the pool -- as well as
> gracefully handle a web server dropping out of the pool. I don't want to
> add yet another set of servers for an extra proxy layer.
> So, I'm currently thinking of running Nginx on each web server. (Keep-alive
> between the load balancer and Nginx, and no keep-alive between Nginx and
> Catalyst with maybe Starman.)
Um... how is adding nginx instead of perlbal not "adding yet another
set of servers"?
Perlbal does more than simple pooling and proxying too - it's very
useful indeed for rewriting urls and stuff like reproxying, etc that
h/ware load balancers don't support
> Anyone see why this might be a bad (or good) approach?
What features of nginx are you looking to use vs say perlbal - depends
on how you'd use it and what for, and how easily either would acheive
your goals easily - perlbal *could* have a short/shallower learning
curve, or nginix may be drop-in job that just works without any
customisation or special extensions
Aaron J Trevena, BSc Hons
LAMP System Integration, Development and Consulting
More information about the Catalyst