|
Well there is error handling with dns, infact it's pretty much fundamental
feature of dns to have secondary name servers so how would that hurt
things....or are you speaking of a lvs machine going down and rr pointing
to a downed lvs server? I see what you mean there but I would still
institute lvs failover as I would without using rr dns, so behind the dns
it would really be the same type of setup. It just seems that rr dns
would be a very simple way to balance across multiple lvs machines.
You could have real servers point to all lvs machines somehow, I think
fwmark can be used here, or have a unique group of real servers per lvs
machine. It would be neat I think, but is there real world benefits to
doing this?
I kind of agree with you on the hackish thing of using rr dns, but dns is
weird I think. There are a lot of thing about dns that don't necessarily
follow standard yet people still do it and bind is written to allow such
behavior. Hey, if it's good enough for kernel.org, it's good enough for
me.
-jeremy
>
> well with rr dns there's no real error handling. if one of those machines
> goes down, nothing's going to stop traffic from trying to go to that ip
> regardless, unless you use a method of dynamic dns and use really low time
> to live fields i guess, but i won't go there. or use monitoring and set
> something up so when one of those machines dies, another sends gratuitous
> arps (fake, whatever) to take over its tasks.
>
> it just seems to me like utilizing dns for something like load balancing
> is pretty "hack"-ish, and not really something nameservice is supposed to
> handle.
>
> what about using lvs to direct traffic to set of lvs machines behind it?
> i guess the flaw there is that the incoming traffic is still hitting 1
> machine at first instead of 2. not sure if you'd even see any real
> performance benefit there. i guess maybe if you kept the table on that
> front machine small and using a simple rr algorithm or what not, traffic
> could go through that machine pretty fast...? shrug.
>
> i've never heard that google _is_ using lvs, so i assume they're not. we
> could ask them!
>
> -tcl.
>
>
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Jeremy Hansen wrote:
>
> >
> > Has anyone ever tried a combination of round robin dns and lvs machines?
> > The VIP's on the lvs machines would be in a rr dns pool making like a
> > second level of load balancing across lvs machines which could have either
> > the same real servers or a different group of real server behind each lvs
> > machine? Just throwing around the idea. Any reasons this would be cool?
> > And reasons it would not?
> >
> > Anyone know if Google uses lvs for load balancing their huge cluster of
> > machines?
> >
> > -jeremy
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--
http://www.xxedgexx.com | jeremy@xxxxxxxxxxxx
---------------------------------------------
|
