Sehr geehrter Kunde/Geschäftspartner,

derzeit bin ich nicht erreichbar. Sie erreichen mich vrstl.  ab Donnerstag, den
21.02.2010 zu den bekannten Bürozeiten.

In dringenden Fällen oder wenn Sie über ein Service-Level-Agreement
verfügen, wenden Sie bitte an einen meiner Kollegen (oder an einen anderen
Ansprechpartner aus Ihrem Projektteam in unserem Hause):

Herrn B. Willmes
0221 3480998 -1
b.willmes(at)invias.de

Diese E-Mail wurde nicht automatisch an Herrn Willmes weitergeleitet.

Besten Gruß
Parrée
     
     
-----
     
INVIAS GmbH & Co. KG     
Schönhauser Str. 19a     
50968 Köln

Sehr geehrter Kunde/Geschäftspartner,

derzeit bin ich nicht erreichbar. Sie erreichen mich vrstl.  ab Donnerstag, den
21.02.2010 zu den bekannten Bürozeiten.

In dringenden Fällen oder wenn Sie über ein Service-Level-Agreement
verfügen, wenden Sie bitte an einen meiner Kollegen (oder an einen anderen
Ansprechpartner aus Ihrem Projektteam in unserem Hause):

Herrn B. Willmes
0221 3480998 -1
b.willmes(at)invias.de

Diese E-Mail wurde nicht automatisch an Herrn Willmes weitergeleitet.

Besten Gruß
Parrée
     
     
-----
     
INVIAS GmbH & Co. KG     
Schönhauser Str. 19a     
50968 Köln

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Raj Ganguly <rajugkgp(at)gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Pound Mailing List] Source ip-Hashing method in load
balancing.
To: pound(at)apsis.ch


Thanks for the info.Is it possible to keep the TTL value as infinite.I mean
the load balancing need to be done only on basis of Client IP I don't want
any dependency with TTL value.

Secondly what is the logic for ip-hasing here as I tried to send request
through different ip addresses like 10.146.163.72 and 10.146.161.143 but
both of them go routed through same Backend (10.146.163.30). Expected result
was it should be routed through different backend.

I have given below the configuration.Any help would be very much
appreciated.


User        "daemon"
Group       "daemon"
#Daemon 0
#LogFacility -
LogLevel 2
ListenHTTP
            Address 10.146.163.31
            Port    80

            Service
                BackEnd
                    Address 10.146.163.30
                    Port    81
                End

                Session
                Type    IP
                TTL   300
                End
            End

            Service
                BackEnd
                    Address 10.146.175.136
                    Port    82
                End

                Session
                Type    IP
                TTL    300
                End
            End

        End

Thanks,
-R


On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Albert <pound(at)alacra.com> wrote:
[...][...][...]

To load balance between your two BackEnds, you need to put both BackEnd 
blocks within the same Service block, and remove the second Service block.

-zs


Raj Ganguly wrote:[...][...]
>>> Hi All,
>>> Is it possible to have source ip-hashing method for load balancing
in
>>> pound
>>> load balancer server.
>>> My requirement is to a VIP with four instances of listening
port.When a
>>> request comes from a client (different ip-addresses is possible)
it should
>>> be routed to any one of the instance. Even for subsequent requests
from
>>> the
>>> same client it should be propagated to the same instance listening
port.
>>> If I am not clear let me know.
>>> Thanks in advance.
>>> -R
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe send an email with subject unsubscribe to
pound(at)apsis.ch.
>>> Please contact roseg(at)apsis.ch for questions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        [...][...]

Hi All,
I am attaching the configuration below and somewhat it looks to be
working.But not clear as how the backend's are selected.I am having to
ipaddress ending with even and odd numbers but still it gets routed to the
same backend.

Like for example 10.146.163.72 and 10.146.176.189 both got routed to
10.146.163.30. I was expecting 10.146.176.189 may be will take the second
backend  10.146.175.136.Seems my understanding is not clear.Please help.Also
is it possible to have infinite TTL value and what would be its impact ?

I have given below the configuration I am following.

User        "daemon"
Group       "daemon"
#Daemon 0
#LogFacility -
LogLevel 2
ListenHTTP
            Address 10.146.163.30
            Port    80

            Service
                BackEnd
                    Address 10.146.163.30
                    Port    81

                End
                BackEnd

                    Address 10.146.175.136
                    Port    82
                End
                Session
                Type    IP
                TTL   300
                End

Thanks,
-R

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 1:41 AM, Zack Steinkamp
<Zack_Steinkamp(at)symantec.com[...]
[...][...]
>>> specific backend for the however long the TTL (time to live) is
setup for
>>> the session.  Here's a sample (it goes within Service definition
block):
>>>
>>> #ip-binding for session for 5 minutes
>>> Session
>>>       Type    IP
>>>       TTL     300
>>> End
>>>
>>> Raj Ganguly wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>> Is it possible to have source ip-hashing method for load
balancing in
>>>> pound
>>>> load balancer server.
>>>> My requirement is to a VIP with four instances of listening
port.When a
>>>> request comes from a client (different ip-addresses is
possible) it
>>>> should
>>>> be routed to any one of the instance. Even for subsequent
requests from
>>>> the
>>>> same client it should be propagated to the same instance
listening port.
>>>> If I am not clear let me know.
>>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>> -R
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> To unsubscribe send an email with subject unsubscribe to
pound(at)apsis.ch
>>>> .
>>>> Please contact roseg(at)apsis.ch for questions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe send an email with subject unsubscribe to
pound(at)apsis.ch.
>>> Please contact roseg(at)apsis.ch for questions.
>>>
>>>
>>>[...][...]

Hi Zack,
I didn't got the response properly it seems.Can you please clarify.
Thanks,
-R

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Raj Ganguly <rajugkgp(at)gmail.com>
wrote:
[...]

Hello Raj,

I think your question got answered already, but I wanted to give you 
some extra advice. If you are running your application in a multi-server 
environment and the app requires that all requests in a single session 
come to the same server, you are asking for trouble.

For example:
- What happens, when one server is overloaded and the balancer removes 
it from the pool? Or the server dies? Or you have to take it down for 
maintenance?
- What happens, if the client changes the IP address between two 
requests (this may happen sometimes and can be outside of the user's 
control)
- What happens, if you have to restart pound?

What I am trying to say is, if there is any possbility to change the 
appliaction, so that it doesn't need this kind of stickiness, you should 
get rid of it. You'll be much happier afterwards, and your users as 
well. Believe me, we went thru this as well.

Michal

Dne 18.1.2010 7:41, Raj Ganguly napsal(a):[...]