[Serusers] Load Balancing via UltraMonkey/ldirectord

[Matt Schulte]

Yah I noticed the other post after I posted mine, I don't see how it
would easily be possible to address the sticky issue. It would require
making a SIP aware proxy of sorts, which is a bit out of my abilities.
Has anyone been able to address this issue? Of course a layer7 switch
would do wonders and eliminate the need for all this, but who has that
money laying around :D

I've done a little research (google) and noticed people mentioning it
when talking about LVS, one guy said he was going to write a module but
posted nothing more. That would be pretty slick.

	Matt

-----Original Message-----
From: Greger V. Teigre [mailto:greger at teigre.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 3:04 AM
To: Matt Schulte; serusers at lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Load Balancing via UltraMonkey/ldirectord


If you see another thread (using the rather intuitive subject: Re: 
[Serusers] more usrloc synchronization), you will see discussions on
using 
LVS in general. AFAIK, which high availability solution to use for LVS,
is 
more based on your personal preferences, UltraMonkey is probably a safe 
choice.  Anyway, you will need to address the "stickiness" issue.
g-)

Matt Schulte wrote:
> Has anyone attempted to load balance SER using Ultramonkey/ldirectord?

> I've noticed all it does is pretty much NAT and send requests 
> accordingly, the trick I guess would be the NAT part. If the SIP 
> headers = myself, would there really be any issues? One problem I can 
> foresee is the possibility that loose routing would hit the wrong 
> server. Just wanted to ask around before I wasted time trying it out 
> for myself :-) Thanks
>
> Matt
>
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> serusers at lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers