How "HA" do you want it to be? You could prepare a spare instance and boot it when your primary back-end is down. Or if you want to come up with a custom made master server election, you can implement your own Server registrar. This making sure you always have a master server.
You can implement a fail over in one way or another. Your load balancer could take care of this so that when one master server is down the traffic redirects automatically to an idle one, or you could use something like a DNS fail over, etc... This could probably be done in several ways but depends on what hardware setup you might have.
Even with warnings we have read from Umbraco, what we have now is the Umbraco backoffice in two servers behind a load balancer. Due to the possible issues using this architecture, we want to avoid problems, and check what possible alternatives we have.
One of the possible solutions having this architecture would be to redirect all calls to one of the balanced servers. So, in this case, the possible issues with Umbraco behind a load balancer will be avoided (correct me if Im wrong). The problem is that in our production environment the Umbraco backoffice is installed inside the IIS Default Web Site, but this is shared with other applications that must be load balanced. So we have discarded this possibility.
So, there exists any alternative to keep Umbraco backoffice behind a load balancer, and avoid the possible issues? Or we have to discard this architecture?
The problem is that in our production environment the Umbraco backoffice is installed inside the IIS Default Web Site, but this is shared with other applications that must be load balanced. So we have discarded this possibility.
what does this mean? and why are things setup this way?
You can have 2x back offices behind a load balancer in a fail over manner. Meaning Active/Passive. If you need to take one of these servers/sites offline, you can re-configure your load balancer to redirect calls to the passive server (thus making it Active). How this works depends on your load balancer, what it is capable of. If you want this fail over to be automatic it's up to you to figure out the best way to handle that and again. There's plenty of resources online on the various ways to fail over an IIS website on one server to another.
Load Balanced umbraco 7
One of the restrictions when implementing Load Balancing in Umbraco is the following:
Umbraco will not work correctly if the back-office is behind the load balancer.
We already have read in this forum about the possible problems when setting the backoffice behind a load-balancer.
But taking this in account, what are the aternatives to provide HA for our Umbraco backoffice servers.
Hi,
Indeed Umbraco does not support a load balanced backend as you can read in the documentation FAQ's about load balancing.
How "HA" do you want it to be? You could prepare a spare instance and boot it when your primary back-end is down. Or if you want to come up with a custom made master server election, you can implement your own Server registrar. This making sure you always have a master server.
Kind regards
Damiaan
You can implement a fail over in one way or another. Your load balancer could take care of this so that when one master server is down the traffic redirects automatically to an idle one, or you could use something like a DNS fail over, etc... This could probably be done in several ways but depends on what hardware setup you might have.
Even with warnings we have read from Umbraco, what we have now is the Umbraco backoffice in two servers behind a load balancer. Due to the possible issues using this architecture, we want to avoid problems, and check what possible alternatives we have.
One of the possible solutions having this architecture would be to redirect all calls to one of the balanced servers. So, in this case, the possible issues with Umbraco behind a load balancer will be avoided (correct me if Im wrong). The problem is that in our production environment the Umbraco backoffice is installed inside the IIS Default Web Site, but this is shared with other applications that must be load balanced. So we have discarded this possibility.
So, there exists any alternative to keep Umbraco backoffice behind a load balancer, and avoid the possible issues? Or we have to discard this architecture?
Thanks in advance.
I don't understand you what mean when you say:
what does this mean? and why are things setup this way?
You can have 2x back offices behind a load balancer in a fail over manner. Meaning Active/Passive. If you need to take one of these servers/sites offline, you can re-configure your load balancer to redirect calls to the passive server (thus making it Active). How this works depends on your load balancer, what it is capable of. If you want this fail over to be automatic it's up to you to figure out the best way to handle that and again. There's plenty of resources online on the various ways to fail over an IIS website on one server to another.
is working on a reply...