Hi Kinkie, On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:51:17 +0200, Kinkie wrote > Hi, > I can't see the advantage of using lighthttpd instead of squid+carp > as the frontend, The idea of putting a lighttpd server as a the frontend is for load balance. What exactly do you mean with squid+carp? several squid servers working as one? Can I have it working in an external DataCenter? If so it seems to be a better solution, even because it's a fault tolerance solution. > and if using lighthttpd i can't see the advantage of > not serving static content directly out of the balancer. Actually, I'm just afraid of overload the server. Initially I don't know exactly how much resources would it consume from each server. If a server like that fits executing two roles, I'm sure it would be better. > Also watch out as nfs has locking and scaling issues of its own > (assuming thet nfs is what you mean by "single filesystem"), and it > also introduces a very nasty point-of-failure. Yes, it's a NAS. Kinkie, the architecture shouldn't be that suggested from me. It's just how I could figure out. Of course I want to make it better. Do you have a suggestion for that? For all I have understood your suggestion is: 1) Some squid servers + carp 2) Application server as the backend servers 3) A third server serving static resources I just didn't figure out your suggestion for storage. Thank you, Ronan
