none
Load balancing / move space RRS feed

  • General discussion

  • I know there is a old topic with a related suggestion, but I wanted to add on to it.

    It would be nice o be able to had websites balanced between machines in addition to a clients entire space. (website-A -> machine 1, website-B -> machine 2, website-C -> machine 1, ...).

    Another thing that would be very nice is the ability to move a clients space to another machine. I just added another machine and would like to reduce the load on my first by moving a clients space to the second one, but currently there isn't a easy way to do this.

    Sunday, October 10, 2010 8:05 PM

All replies

  • Hi,

    I too miss option to be able to move resources from one machine to another. As of now it is only possible to move unalocated resources from the same machine into WSP on the same machine, for example, if you have manually configured web sites, or web sites from old HELM or another control panel.

    But even such a move (Imprt Resurces) gave me problems on each and every site I imported - none of inported sites work, in most cases it was Application Pool issue.

    So I move sites manually:

    • created BATCH script which copies web site content from one server to another into proper web space. All checks are included.
    • another script copies MySQL databases, but I haven't solved MySQL USERS copying yet.
    • then I IMPORT RESOURCES inside the same machine
    • and "disable" and "enable" DNS to give web site proper DNS records

    Regarding BALANCING my idea would be to have 2 options:

    1. FAIL protection by lowering DNS TTL to 10 minutes, then you should have a script, which would change DNS records in case of one site not responding. This method would require setup of identical web sites, which would be synchronised on file-level and had SQL databases replicated. Tough, very tough!
    2. DISTRIBUTION of resources by having an option to move customer's resources from one server to another. Those host servers should be IDENTICAL by all means. This is much easier to implement, but by my oppinion still waaaaay to go :)
    Wednesday, October 20, 2010 3:00 AM