| 1 |
On 29/08/2013 08:54, Pandu Poluan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hello list! |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Here's my scenario: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Currently there is a server performing 2 functions; one runs on, let's |
| 7 |
> say, port 2000, and another one runs on port 3000. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Due to some necessary changes, especially the need to (1) provide more |
| 10 |
> resource for a function, and (2) delegate management of the functions |
| 11 |
> to different teams, we are going to split the server into two. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> The problem is: Many users -- spread among 80+ branches throughout the |
| 14 |
> country -- access the server using IP Address instead of DNS name. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> So, my plan was to leave port 2000's application on the original |
| 17 |
> server, implement port 3000's application on a new server, and have |
| 18 |
> all access to port 3000 of the original server to be redirected to |
| 19 |
> same port on the new server. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> I can implement this using iptables SNAT & DNAT ... or I can use HA-Proxy. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Can anyone provide some benefit / drawback analysis on either solution? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I don't have any practical experience of using HA-Proxy. However, if you |
| 26 |
are sizing up Netfilter as a solution then I would suggest that you also |
| 27 |
consider Linux Virtual Server (LVS). It provides a lightweight NAT |
| 28 |
implementation and scales well. It is natively administered with the |
| 29 |
ipvsadm tool but I would recommend using ldirectord or such: |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
http://horms.net/projects/ldirectord/ |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
--Kerin |
Archives