LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: [lvs-users] New to LVS

To: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [lvs-users] New to LVS
From: Doug Bagley <doug@xxxxxxxx>
Date: 15 Feb 2000 09:13:15 -0600
"Alexander Meis (simmail]" <simmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Is it possibel to have virtual Domains based on one IP in the Cluster ?

Since LVS balances at the IP level, it should have no bearing on
name-based virtual web hosting which is done via HTTP/1.1.  I'm
assuming that is what this question is about, since it looks like
the requirement is to do virtual web hosting with a single IP (which
would be one VIP on the Director in this case).

The HOWTO briefly talks about IP based virtual hosting.  Apparently,
in that case, you just set up a VIP for each domain, and have it
direct to the same web servers that serve all the domains.


But for me, this brings up a slightly different, but interesting
question: are requests load balanced based on the VIP or the RIP?
For instance for the "lc" algorithm, is the number of connections
used in the algorithm the ones from the client to the VIP?  or from
the Director to a real server?  Looking at the source, it looks like
each service (VIP) has a list of real servers (destinations), and the
active connection count is by each RIP in a VIP, not by RIP alone.
That is, the active connections from one VIP are not counted in the
active connections for any other VIP.

It seems to me it would be useful in some cases to use the total number
of connections to a real server in the load balancing calculation, in
the case where the real server participates in servicing a number of
different VIPs.

Did I interpret the facts right and does this make sense?

Cheers,
Doug

----------------------------------------------------------------------
LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lvs-users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: lvs-users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>