|
This should work. However, attempts to connect directly to the outside
internet from the Real Servers will most likely fail. Why? Because they
will forward packets to the gateway with a source address inside of a
private IP range (192.168) which the router will drop.
As best I can tell, the only way to solve this problem is to have the LVS
servers double as masquerading gateways and use source based routing on
the Real Servers such that:
Packets with a source address of the VIP go directly to the "real"
gateway, achieving the performance benefits of DR.
Packets with a source address inside of 192.168 are routed to the
masquerading gateway on the LVS boxes.
When I last investigated this the only way to do source based routing on
Linux was with the "ip" command (which I can't find in any recent
distributions). Anyone know where it went?
-Ian
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, tc lewis wrote:
>
> here's what i'm thinking i can do:
>
> 200.200.200.1 = router
> (whatever, some publically-accessable ip range...)
> 200.200.200.11 = lvs balancer 1.
> 200.200.200.12 = lvs balancer 2.
> route 192.168.100.0/255.255.255.0 added to both balancers (not sure if this
> is even necessary)
> 192.168.100.101 = real server 1.
> 192.168.100.102 = real server 2.
> route 200.200.200.0/255.255.255.0 added to both real servers.
> gateway on real servers = 200.200.200.1
>
> 2 balancers that fail over via heartbeat/ultramonkey.
>
> i'd like to do balancing on port 80 with the direct routing method. i'll
> probably use ipchains on the real servers to solve the arp problem as i'll
> probably be redirecting port 80 to some non-priviledged port on the real
> server anyway (8080, whatever). the machines listed above will not be
> physically segmented--they'll all be on the same vlan of a foundry
> workgroup network switch.
>
> will this work? if they're on the same physical segment like this then
> the balancers should be able to redirect traffic properly via direct
> routing, and the real servers can then send back out to the real world
> with that 200.200.200.0 route through the .1 gateway.
>
> am i correct or am i missing something here?
>
> sorry, it's been a while since i've done much with lvs, so i just wanted a
> quick confirmation. thanks!
>
> -tcl.
>
>
>
>
|
