What algorithm does Amazon ELB use to balance load?

I found this in the official ELB documentation

By default, a load balancer routes each request independently to the
application instance with the smallest load.

but an article on Newvem says that ELB supports only Round Robin algorithm

Algorithms supported by Amazon ELB - Currently Amazon ELB only supports Round Robin (RR) and Session Sticky Algorithms.

So which one is it?

[1] http://docs.aws.amazon.com/ElasticLoadBalancing/latest/DeveloperGuide/US_StickySessions.html

[2] http://www.newvem.com/dissecting-amazon-elastic-load-balancer-elb-18-facts-you-should-know/?lead_source=popup_ebook&oid=00DD0000000lsYR&email=muneeb%40olacabs.com

Answer

It's request count based for HTTP(S), round robin for other.

http://docs.aws.amazon.com/ElasticLoadBalancing/latest/DeveloperGuide/TerminologyandKeyConcepts.html#request-routing

Before a client sends a request to your load balancer, it first
resolves the load balancer's domain name with the Domain Name System
(DNS) servers. The DNS server uses DNS round robin to determine which
load balancer node in a specific Availability Zone will receive the
request.

The selected load balancer node then sends the request to healthy

instances within the same Availability Zone. To determine the healthy
instances, the load balancer node uses either the round robin (for TCP
connections) or the least outstanding request (for HTTP/HTTPS
connections) routing algorithm. The least outstanding request routing
algorithm favors back-end instances with the fewest connections or
outstanding requests.

Comments

linux - iDRAC6 Virtual Media native library cannot be loaded

When attempting to mount Virtual Media on a iDRAC6 IP KVM session I get the following error: I'm using Ubuntu 9.04 and: $ javaws -version Java(TM) Web Start 1.6.0_16 $ uname -a Linux aud22419-linux 2.6.28-15-generic #51-Ubuntu SMP Mon Aug 31 13:39:06 UTC 2009 x86_64 GNU/Linux $ firefox -version Mozilla Firefox 3.0.14, Copyright (c) 1998 - 2009 mozilla.org On Windows + IE it (unsurprisingly) works. I've just gotten off the phone with the Dell tech support and I was told it is known to work on Linux + Firefox, albeit Ubuntu is not supported (by Dell, that is). Has anyone out there managed to mount virtual media in the same scenario?

hp proliant - Smart Array P822 with HBA Mode?

We get an HP DL360 G8 with an Smart Array P822 controller. On that controller will come a HP StorageWorks D2700 . Does anybody know, that it is possible to run the Smart Array P822 in HBA mode? I found only information about the P410i, who can run HBA. If this is not supported, what you think about the LSI 9207-8e controller? Will this fit good in that setup? The Hardware we get is used but all original from HP. The StorageWorks has 25 x 900 GB SAS 10K disks. Because the disks are not new I would like to use only 22 for raid6, and the rest for spare (I need to see if the disk count is optimal or not for zfs). It would be nice if I'm not stick to SAS in future. As OS I would like to install debian stretch with zfs 0.71 as file system and software raid. I have see that hp has an page for debian to. I would like to use hba mode because it is recommend, that zfs know at most as possible about the disk, and I'm independent from the raid controller. For us zfs have many benefits,

apache 2.2 - Server Potentially Compromised -- c99madshell

So, low and behold, a legacy site we've been hosting for a client had a version of FCKEditor that allowed someone to upload the dreaded c99madshell exploit onto our web host. I'm not a big security buff -- frankly I'm just a dev currently responsible for S/A duties due to a loss of personnel. Accordingly, I'd love any help you server-faulters could provide in assessing the damage from the exploit. To give you a bit of information: The file was uploaded into a directory within the webroot, "/_img/fck_uploads/File/". The Apache user and group are restricted such that they can't log in and don't have permissions outside of the directory from which we serve sites. All the files had 770 permissions (user rwx, group rwx, other none) -- something I wanted to fix but was told to hold off on as it wasn't "high priority" (hopefully this changes that). So it seems the hackers could've easily executed the script. Now I wasn't able

Blog

Search This Blog