|
Hi Andreas
> The most important reason behind this is that we want to
> avoid bloat on the LVS to make it as fast as possible so it never
> becomes the bottleneck. Before adding features to it, one should
> evaluate readily available solutions.
I think it is not a good idea to see LVS as a stand alone network balancer.
Its o.K. to say: "If you use it as simple load balancer, it will never be a
bottleneck, but if you use sophisticated features it can be."
> ...., it's only drawback is that it's not as fast as LVS.
I think the focus always has to be the whole system and LVS is a part
of the system. It can happen that I am needing a quite complex algorithm
for the job and integrating it into LVS delivers the fastest solution.
So why not ?
markus
mbernhardt.vcf
Description: Card for Markus Bernhardt
|
