My current setup:

1 Http Load Balancer
3 Apache Frontend Server
1 Mysql Load Balancer (Balancing reads across all three, writes go to master only)
3 Mysql Database Server (1 master, 2 slave)

All is good, but I have sudden scheduled bursts of traffic and need to scale up during these peaks. I'm thinking of moving to a simpler routine.

1 Http Load Balancer
n* Apache + Mysql Servers combined (1 of which contains the Mysql master)

Each apache server will read from it's local database but write to the master. This means to scale up all I will need to do is start another server and add it to the LB. Generally I need the same amount of Apache servers as Mysql.

Do you see any problems with this setup? I haven't seen anybody using this setup before so I am wondering what are the disadvantages.


By having a single load balancer there's still a single point of failure on your setup. So the first thing I would do, would be to add a second load balancer and setup a virtual ip shared between the two load balancers.

LeasewebLabs has a nice article about how to do that.

Also I believe that webservers should be on different machines than db servers (+ you're probably not going to need as many db servers, as webservers). I understand that your new setup looks easier, but in the end it'll be an overkill imho. Of course it all depends on the type of service/website you're hosting.

Check out serverfault's blog re: their setup for tips: link

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.