Riak behind a Load Balancer

Samuel Elliott sam at lenary.co.uk
Mon Jun 25 04:40:10 EDT 2012


On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Matt Black <matt.black at jbadigital.com> wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> Does anyone have an opinion on the concept of putting a Riak cluster behind
> a load balancer?

It has been done before. there are various results when searching
"riak haproxy" in your favourite search engine.

>
> We wish to be able to automatically add/remove nodes from the cluster, so
> adding an extra layer at the front is desirable. We should also benefit for
> incoming requests behind shared across all nodes.
>
> Can anyone see any drawbacks / problems with doing this?

If your load balancer falls over, what do you do then? Highly
available may go down the pan. Have more than one would be the obvious
answer.

What do you do when you want to transparently add more machines to
your load balancer?

Maybe it might be better to have a list of riak nodes stored in a
separate registry (I'm thinking something like zookeeper), that your
application servers can then poll for changes (or even subscribe to
changes) to the list of servers.

Sam

>
> Thanks
> Matt
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> riak-users mailing list
> riak-users at lists.basho.com
> http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
>



-- 
Samuel Elliott
sam at lenary.co.uk
http://lenary.co.uk/
+44 (0)7891 993 664




More information about the riak-users mailing list