How to set up varnish not be a single point of failure

[Angelo Höngens]

On 28-1-2011 14:38, Caunter, Stefan wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 2011-01-28, at 6:26 AM, "Stewart Robinson" <stewsnooze at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Other people have configured two Varnish servers to be backends for
>> each other. When you see the other Varnish cache as your remote IP you
>> then point the request to the real backend. This duplicates your cache
>> items in each cache.
>>
>> Be aware of http://www.varnish-cache.org/trac/wiki/VCLExampleHashIgnoreBusy
>>
>> Stew
>>
>> On 28 January 2011 10:46, Siju George <sgeorge.ml at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I understand that varnish does not support cache peering like Squid.
>>> My planned set up is something like
>>>
>>>
>>>           ---- Webserver1 ---              ------- Cache ---
>>> ------ API
>>> LB ----|                          |---- LB----|                    |---- LB
>>> ----|
>>>           ---- Webserver2 ---              ------- Cache ---
>>> ------ API
>>>
>>> So if I am using Varnish as Cache what is the best way to configure them so
>>> that there is redundancy and the setup can continue even if one Cache fails?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> --Siju
> 
> 
> Put two behind LB. Caches are cooler but you get high availability. 
> Easy to do maintenance this way. 


We use Varnish on CentOS machines. We use Pacemaker for
high-availability (multiple virtual ip's) and DNSRR for balancing
end-users to the caches.

see
http://blog.hongens.nl/guides/setting-up-a-pacemaker-cluster-on-centosrhel/
for the pacemaker part..

-- 


With kind regards,


Angelo Höngens
systems administrator

MCSE on Windows 2003
MCSE on Windows 2000
MS Small Business Specialist
------------------------------------------
NetMatch
tourism internet software solutions

Ringbaan Oost 2b
5013 CA Tilburg
+31 (0)13 5811088
+31 (0)13 5821239

A.Hongens at netmatch.nl
www.netmatch.nl
------------------------------------------