Re: Speaking about pure fail over - what about pen itself ?

From: Ulric Eriksson <>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 20:35:11 +0200 (CEST)

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 wrote:

>> I'm only looking at two boxes, except that they will also balance other
>> services located elsewhere. Should the separate interfaces that pen
>> listens to (not the shared one), be real or can they be virtual ?
>> Also, if going with independent LB boxes (such as the original example),
>> do they need to be powerful boxes ? TIA...
> A simple and cheap way to do failover for pen would be using
> failover at the DNS level - with a service like
> Zone Edit (
> ZoneEdit can test if the server is up and if it is not, it can point
> your domain to a different IP possibly on a different network.

I'm positive that can't work. The old address will be cached on
several levels throughout the Internet and there is no way to
clear all those caches from a central point. If they charge money
for the service, it's a hoax. Otherwise it's just silly.

Multicast in Linux isn't very reliable (or I'm simply
incompetent), så the vrrp solution isn't as good as it seems. The
easiest solution is to point the domain to two addresses, one for
each pen instance.

Actually, the easiest solution is to install pen on a single
server and forget about it, at least as long as the hardware is

Received on Mon Mar 27 2006 - 20:35:12 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 27 2006 - 20:35:13 CEST