Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F9A0200D14 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 21:31:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 9E4F81609DE; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 19:31:35 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 966631609BD for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 21:31:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 68951 invoked by uid 500); 3 Oct 2017 19:31:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@airavata.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@airavata.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@airavata.apache.org Received: (qmail 68939 invoked by uid 99); 3 Oct 2017 19:31:33 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Oct 2017 19:31:33 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id BCBD51A0F48 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 19:31:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.379 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.379 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd2-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7kTI0oTUfcwL for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 19:31:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oi0-f46.google.com (mail-oi0-f46.google.com [209.85.218.46]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id C09075FB57 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 19:31:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi0-f46.google.com with SMTP id n82so16084926oib.8 for ; Tue, 03 Oct 2017 12:31:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=6dFD+QV1XZkaupEV7Qvdfk5vkHbWRQ4NQEPKFV7zwa8=; b=Hs/JkK3KG42C+I/48hjlUFdHssPFcLrIS3t7MsG3QixQT3wsL4I3Mjs4TEF9xfYHWu UpyOYX1Q3nDN5eaSrhHQ2duheNORzFy0oea+YenMyFsuCOYQ4BgMCIogA6Fx2uEQhybh 069vkR2t5BxzaoDVmCtYt/LDTcm2AYThc+/jkXapbHdCWg5hblF5oxxwJIMnJHn5Wk31 Jj3H1OKvDwUK/snkU7lKGi9u903YYKxxfefARYKQ5aGk2URUVQooeTDDxWQzB9XaP1E/ 68aNvE/BBBCSdB2Pl5OMWLLUiWkg7Af2LKiNNKrtycEGOu6EZGINgcocmHj7x88TUqRY Ijmw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=6dFD+QV1XZkaupEV7Qvdfk5vkHbWRQ4NQEPKFV7zwa8=; b=Su/hJzakx4mMzR92u6mRKk/R+DyIaIIVHCyxuvZjtFWnNBuywxsswbuFe/pGjBMPXW xcC5eE9NGY47aG/VakErveuhXSGdlo9QanWQFABtThiptMJleWAD8aAVRhvaJVMoBwne hF9xCd4KCtxglixRmuxp66K7QjPGGbx/h2LkMRDBnDz9/9Z4KSVXurlFHB+yVrFhaNhK PNbcptdTkWnLYE5QDwraMtZjcYKqJE+xZ/S6MAz8eZsfo+atIiebEQIHVRC0iCtxPxxq lGfkgTHMK2fyg2ufGdG5vBrJeUWtKALWxyQLBCqrqJPEPcdGkewodNARB6rEUw3FNe/S E1Og== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaWctBimvcBKTMVYvjyl8MXd+hL2Yx1M+AuLbC9TqHsuU2i9l97r nFzAbxWK/857WYH2NAJ1un0svFeR+OmaEipRyF4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QDm8AKHnc2SL5+zVEHrkWDxuXyhBp6dCuhUnha4qql2B5K6nHZ3ZjNIF8TYYD28psC+h2FoioDYYZWmyilgWW0= X-Received: by 10.202.199.82 with SMTP id x79mr2473689oif.351.1507059089902; Tue, 03 Oct 2017 12:31:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.157.55.244 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 12:31:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <7EE45E05-666E-47A2-9735-60E8D11081CA@iu.edu> From: Jerrin Suresh Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 15:31:09 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Working on Load Balancers To: dev@airavata.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1137c772b595ae055aa989ba" archived-at: Tue, 03 Oct 2017 19:31:35 -0000 --001a1137c772b595ae055aa989ba Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The main idea of implementing a load balancer is to balance the load to the portal and remove any single point of failure. However, after implementing the load balancer, the load balancer itself becomes a single point of failure. Any thoughts regarding the same? Should we have multiple load balancers involved, i.e a master and a slave or a dual master setup? On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Christie, Marcus Aaron wrote: > No plans. But if it makes sense to do so we could. > > On Oct 2, 2017, at 10:03 AM, Jerrin Suresh wrote= : > > Just a quick question, do you have plans of dockerizing the Django portal= ? > > > ~jerrin > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:58 PM, Jerrin Suresh > wrote: > >> Hi Marcus, >> >> Thanks for the update. I shall set the load balancer up for a sample >> application, and am planning to use haproxy for the project. >> >> Regards, >> Jerrin >> >> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Christie, Marcus Aaron >> wrote: >> >>> Jerrin, >>> >>> What specifically do you want to work on regarding load balancing? >>> Depending on what you want to work on, load balancing a web application= is >>> fairly independent of the web application framework. So I would say fo= r >>> now you could just try load balancing any web application, even a simpl= e >>> little one written in either Laravel or Django (or another framework). >>> >>> We run the PHP PGA and Django PGA in Apache HTTPD server. So it would >>> be good if the load balancing work you do works with Apache HTTPD. Howe= ver, >>> I=E2=80=99m open to using something else like nginx or whatever if you = can make a >>> good case for it. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Marcus >>> >>> On Sep 28, 2017, at 11:25 AM, Jerrin Suresh >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am working on setting up Load Balancers for Apache Airavata. However, >>> as the PGA is being moved to the Django framework is it better to work = on >>> the PGA branch or should I work on the Django branch? >>> >>> >>> ~jerrin >>> -- >>> MS CS Fall-2018 >>> Indiana University >>> www.linkedin.com/in/jerrinsuresh >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> MS CS Fall-2018 >> Indiana University >> www.linkedin.com/in/jerrinsuresh >> >> > > > -- > MS CS Fall-2018 > Indiana University > www.linkedin.com/in/jerrinsuresh > > > --=20 MS CS Fall-2018 Indiana University www.linkedin.com/in/jerrinsuresh --001a1137c772b595ae055aa989ba Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The main idea of implementing a load balancer is to balanc= e the load to the portal and remove any single point of failure. However, a= fter implementing the load balancer, the load balancer itself becomes a sin= gle point of failure.

Any thoughts regarding the same? S= hould we have multiple load balancers involved, i.e a master and a slave or= a dual master setup?



On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 10:5= 1 AM, Christie, Marcus Aaron <machrist@iu.edu> wrote:
No plans. But if it makes sense to do so we could.

On Oct 2, 2017, at 10:03 AM, Jerrin Suresh <jerrinsuresh@gmail.com> wrote:<= /div>
Just a quick question, do you have plans of dockerizing th= e Django portal?


~jerrin




--




--
--001a1137c772b595ae055aa989ba--