I have a windows COM+ server connected to several SQL databases. The user sessions are stored in memory on the server. A MFC windows client connects to the server. The traffic is starting to get too high for just one server to handle so I would like to have one more. I plan to just redirect all new users to the new server like so:
my-server -- old users -- > my-server1
my-server -- new users -- > my-server2
but then I thought there might be some load balancing framework out there that might work better. What is the best way to solve the problem? What are the pros and cons with using a premade load balancer vs redirecting users.
I would recommend the use of HAproxy for this. It supports both HTTP and plain TCP:
http://haproxy.1wt.eu/
Related
I have a web application spread over multiple servers and the incoming traffic is handled by HAProxy in order to balance the load. When we do the distribution, we do it at night because the users are much less and therefore we are less in service. To make the distribution we use the following strategy:
we shut down half of the servers
we deploy on servers that are turned off
we reactivate the servers that are turned off
we perform the same procedure on the other servers
The problem is that in any case I turn off the servers we close connections to users. Is there a better strategy for doing this? How could I improve this and avoid disservices and maybe be able to make distributions even during the day?
I hope I was clear. Thanks
I strongly suggest to use health checks for the servers.
Using HAProxy as an API Gateway, Part 3 [Health Checks]
You should have a URL ("/health") which you can use for health check of the backend server and add option redispatch to the config.
Now when you want to maintain the backend server just "remove" the "/health" URL and haproxy automagically routes the user to the other available servers.
I have two servers and both are working fine.
How to sync all my data from one server to another server/backup-storage/remote-storage.
I want to know if one of my server is down due to heavy load then how to use instantly second server and what is the role of DNS in this, because if we use another server then we have to change DNS also for particular website so how to overcome this.
You can check cloudflare load balancer.
Architecturally you have two problems to solve:
load balancing (how clients are routed to one of the servers) - this involves sometimes DNS settings but because cloudflare hosts your DNS as well, you are cool
Synchronization: files and database sync between hosting accounts. Now here there is no standard way to go especially because your are hosted using cpanel
DATABASE:
You can't use master-master or master-slabe database replication mechanisms like Galera Cluster has.
You're best bet is to have a cron that will export the database from one server to the other. (using mysqldump - basically exporting and then importing)
on live:
mysqldump -u userName -p yourLiveDatabaseName > live_database_export.sql
on the hot backup (your other account):
mysql -u username -p yourOtherServerDatabaseName < live_database_export.sql
FILES:
If you have SSH access use rsync.
Otherwise you may need to invent something.
For instance you can check the Cpanel API in regards to account transfers -> that will solve the database as well https://api.docs.cpanel.net/openapi/whm/operation/create_remote_user_transfer_session/
As a remark - you are not in the best position to do HA having two cPanel shared accounts. What I usually do is to use virtual machines that are sync at the hypervisor level.
I would like to create a web service with GoLang that runs either on IIS (7, 8 or 10) or under Tomcat 7.0. We have multiple environments, each with multiple servers, all being Windows 2008 R2, 2012 or 2016. All servers are private (10.x). My goal is to add some REST services to a COTS product that uses both IIS and Tomcat. I'd prefer to avoid gluing nginx or something else onto either server at the risk of impairing the COTS product or having their tech support people not answer the phone. Again .. the servers are only accessible via corporate VPN and are not public internet-facing.
Which server would offer the easiest path to get something working -- Tomcat or IIS?
That's not really about Go, but still there exist at least two solutions I can think of:
Reverse proxying of HTTP requests.
Write a plain Go server serving requests via HTTP.
Maybe turn it into a proper Windows service using golang.org/x/sys/windows/svc.
Deploy it.
If it's to be hosted on the same machine which runs IIS, then it's fine to make it listen on localhost only. Note that it will need a dedicated TCP port to listen on, and you'll need to make it possible for your server to be somehow configurable in this regard.
Set up reverse proxying in your IIS so that it forwards requests coming to whatever (part of an) URL you want to the Go server.
Use FastCGI.
Go supports serving requests over the FastCGI
protocol by means of its standard library,
and IIS suports FastCGI workers.
So it's possible to (re-)write your Go server to use FastCGI
instead of HTTP and then hook it into IIS via this protocol.
The pros and cons of these solutions—as I view them—are:
Serving over plain HTTP is more familiar to a developer and
makes the server more "portable"—in the sense it will be easier to change its deployment scheme if/when you'll need it.
Right to making it available to the Internet directly.
Conversely, with FastCGI, you'll always need a FastCGI host as a "middleware".
There were rumors that HTTP code is more fine-tuned in terms
of performance than that of FastCGI.
Still, this only will be of concern for reasonably hard-core loads.
One possible upside of FastCGI over HTTP is that it can
be served over pipes rather than TCP. For instance, you might
get it served over named pipes as it's supported by IIS's FastCGI module and there exists 3rd-party packages for Go implementing support for them
(even including one from Microsoft®).
The upside of this is that pipes are beleived to incur lesser overhead for data transfer (basically it's just shoveling bytes between in-kernel buffers belonging to two processes instead of pushing them through the whole TCP/IP stack), and using pipes frees you from the need of dedicating a TCP port to the Go server.
Still, I have no personal experience with this kind of setup and its performance trade-offs.
My question, to be more clear, it is to create a server with mongodb on a cloud hosting (for example) and access it through another server.
Example:
I have a mobile app.
I hosted my mongoDB a cloud hosting (ubuntu).
I want to connect my app to the db on the server cloud.
Is it possible? How?
I'm joining this learning and my question was exactly MongoDB to create a server in a way that I could access it remotely.
Out of "localhost"? Different from all the tutorials I've seen.
From what you are describing, I think you want to implement a 2-Tier-Architecture. For practically all use cases, don't do it!
It's definitely possible, yes. You can open up the MongoDB port in your firewall. Let's say your computer has a fixed IP or a fixed name like mymongo.example.com. You can then connect to mongodb://mymongo.example.com:27017 (if you use the default port). But beware:
Security You need to make sure that clients can only perform those operations that you want to allow, e.g. using MongoDB integrated authentication, otherwise some random script kiddie will steal you database, delete it, or fill it with random data. Many servers, even if they don't host a well-known service, get attacked thousands of times per day. Also, you probably want to encrypt the connection so people can't spy on the connection. And to make it all worse, you will have to store the database credentials in your client app, which is practically impossible to do in a truly secure way.
Software architecture There is a ton of arguments against this architecture, but 1) alone should be enough. You never want to couple your client to the database, be it because of data migrations, software updates, security considerations, etc.
3-Tier
So what to do instead? Use a 3-Tier-Architecture: Host a server of some kind on mymongo.example.com that then connects to the database. That server could be implemented in nginx/node.js, iis/asp.net, apache/php, or whatever. It could even be a plain old C application (like many game servers).
The mongodb can still reside on yet a different machine, but when you use a server, the database credentials are only known to the server, not to all the clients.
Yes, it is possible. You would connect to MongoDB using the ip address of your host, or preferably using it's fully qualified hostname rather than "localhost". If you do that, you should secure your MongoDB installation otherwise anyone would be able to connect to your MongoDB instance. At an absolute minimum, enable MongoDB authentication. You should read up on MongoDB Security.
For a mobile application, you would probably have some sort of application server in front of MongoDB, e.g. your mobile application would not be connecting to MongoDB directly. In that case only your application server would be connecting to MongoDB, and you would secure MongoDB accordingly.
It seems that both service and server refer to some web based application. But is there any precise definition of the two terms?
A server offers one or more services. Server is also a more technical term, whereas service is more a term off the problem domain.
You also need to distinguish between:
Server as hardware (see post from Dan D)
Server as software (eg. Apache HTTP server)
You can find more elaborate definiton on Wikipedia:
Service
Server
This is regardless of client-server or P2P models.
A server provides services to one or more clients, and a server(hardware) is a computer. A server(hardware) can be anything from a home computer to a big server-rack with a lot of processor power.
From the view of a computer, a server(software) is just a set of services which is available to clients on the network.
Some well known services are web-server, mail-server. ftp-server. notice they are called xxx-server because such programs consist of a client and server part. The postfix is mainly to distinguish whether we are talking about the client or the server.
So at what moment do we call something a server? We do it when a computer shares some service/content on the network, which is accessible by clients. In other words, when we make a server as defined for software.
Regarding the P2P model: every one is both a client and a server, hence called servent. The above apply to the server part of a P2P network, just remember that it also can be a client.
Futher reading:
Client-Server model
P2P
a server is a piece of hardware or on a virtual machine
a service is a process that provides services normally over the network and runs on a server
but a server can also refer to a web server which is actual a service but it's sort of like one as it hosts services
i think those are reasonable working definitions
I think a simpler way to define both besides the definition of the server being a piece of hardware, a server in the software sense is a service that serves data. In other words you interact with a server with a request and you should get a response back. It "serves" data.
A service does not need interaction and is pretty much just a random process that keeps running doing the same thing, but a server is a service because it is basically a process that keep waiting for a request to come in so that it can return a response.
"A service is a component that performs operations in the background without a user interface."
~ Android Developers
Services don't just run on servers
Shell services
Services can run from the shell. Unix refers to services as Daemons (pronounced "demons"), and Windows refers to them as services.
Client-side services
Services can run client-side. Mozilla (and other browsers) support Web Workers which run in a background thread. Client-side frameworks, like Angular, support services as well.