Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: backhand.org

Stories and comments across the archive that link to backhand.org.

Comments · 8

  1. Re:Better fuel required by BaCkBuRn · · Score: 1 · on Hybrid Drivers Provide Real-World Mileage Data

    mod_backhand maybe? :)

  2. For me ... by Pegasus · · Score: 1 · on Is Apache 2.0 Worth the Switch for PHP?

    The lack of simple inteligent proxies and load balancers such as mod_backhand for Apache 2.0 is a major show stopper. There's simply no large enough machine (for limited budget) that would be able to handle the load. And i find other load balancing solutions inferior.

  3. Large Scale Infrastructures by Floody · · Score: 2, Informative · on Building/Testing of a High Traffic Infrastructure?

    1. Foundry ServerIrons at the front-end layer.

    2. Front-end proxying/caching. Not just static content either, take dynamic content that need not be updated often and put it on the front-end in a fashion that does not require over-weight httpds (i.e. no mod_perl). Use session affinity tricks on the front end (such as mod_rewrite with cookies). squid for caching as necessary.

    3. Back-end heavy servers should have a maximum amount of memory, and obviously lower maxclients.

    4. NetApp storage on the back-end, scaled as needed.

    5. http://www.backhand.org/mod_log_spread/

    6. Well designed network topology and aggressive switch partitioning: hint, use vlans and minimize trunking.

  4. logging by MasTRE · · Score: 2, Informative · on Hardening Apache

    For non-database logging, use mod_log_spread. This also solves the problem of merging logs if you happen to run a web farm.

  5. Re:mod_backhand by Deal-a-Neil · · Score: 2 · on Load Balancers for Linux?

    Yes, I've used mod_backhand. It has great support through the authors as well as through the user development group -- just join their mailing list. It has been deployed on simple 3-node web clusters to even more complex 15+-node web clusters, and it has worked just great at balancing the load of millions of daily pageviews.

    mod_backhand, as you can tell by its name, is an Apache module. So, this isn't a replacement for a hardware based load-balancer unless all you're load balancing is HTTP requests.

    It's very easy to implement if you're a semi-seasoned web admin that understands Apache directives in the httpd.conf. There are five built-in candidacy functions -- the things that choose which server will be chosen to serve up the data. The project was developed at the Center for Network and Distributed Systems at The Johns Hopkins University.

  6. Re:mod_backhand by Deal-a-Neil · · Score: 2 · on Load Balancers for Linux?

    Yes, I've used mod_backhand. It has great support through the authors as well as through the user development group -- just join their mailing list. It has been deployed on simple 3-node web clusters to even more complex 15+-node web clusters, and it has worked just great at balancing the load of millions of daily pageviews.

    mod_backhand, as you can tell by its name, is an Apache module. So, this isn't a replacement for a hardware based load-balancer unless all you're load balancing is HTTP requests.

    It's very easy to implement if you're a semi-seasoned web admin that understands Apache directives in the httpd.conf. There are five built-in candidacy functions -- the things that choose which server will be chosen to serve up the data. The project was developed at the Center for Network and Distributed Systems at The Johns Hopkins University.

  7. Re:Netcraft Result by dudle · · Score: 1 · on Hotmail about to collapse under load

    It's quite simple actually. The machine that accepts the TCP connection (the load balancer) forwards it on to one of a pool of webservers. Sometimes also called reverse proxying. Obviously the load balancer and the webservers do not need to run the same OS, as you see in this example.

    Get REAL!
    A load balancer IS NOT doing reverse proxying. The exception would be mod_backhand and I am quite sure that's not what you were talking about. When you do load balancing and you have Microsoft's wallet, you use real stuff. Big-IP, Webserver Director, stuff like that. Those appliances are dedicated to do that type of stuff. You can use the excellent mod_backhand but since it does not do failover, it's a plus not a replacement. Now let's see : Obviously the load balancer and the webservers do not need to run the same OS. You are supposing that the load balancer is running an OS like Win2000 or BSD? AHHHHH!!!!!. I would be damn if they dare to do that. When you engineer a network that size, you use appliances, not home made PC or that sort of boxes. For the Info, you can customize the header Apache returns when you send him a request. Go on Netcraft and check www.real.com. They are running Apache on Linux but as you can see that's not what they show on their Apache headers.

  8. mod_backhand by your+jesus · · Score: 2 · on Implementing a Load-Balanced Webserver?


    If you like Apache, check out mod_backhand. It is a module load-balancer that is under development (but works well now) over at The Center for Networks and Distributed Systems at Johns Hopkins.

    It is a module that incurs almost NO overhead. You can mark directories or locations with Load Balancing policies and BOOM. That is it. It communicates with other Apache servers via multicast and handles the rest. You can even plug in your own decision making algorithms. It is super simple to load balance cgi-scripts to some machines, mod_perl database script to another set and images based on a completely different policy. Or just use our default ;)

    It curently runs under Linux and Solaris, but the next release will support BSDI as well.

    It is a software solution that can be combined with any hardware solution you choose (if you need that too). You can't loose with this. The install process and set up time combined is very minimal.

    Of course, I am a little biased ;)

    -- Theo Schlossnagle