|
Only one LinuxDirector is active a time. In order to "load balance" to two
LinuxDirectors, one would need yet another load balancer. (perhaps another
LinuxDirector) This load balancer would probably need to be redundant too.
:) So there's no way to get around having one stand-by inactive
LinuxDirector.
What can be done is to put half of your load balanced VIPs on one director
and half on the other. Make it so that LD-A is master for its half and LD-B
is master for the other half. LD-A will be slave for LD-B's mastered VIPs
and LD-B will be slave for LD-A's mastered VIPs. This MIGHT end up taking
load off of each load balancer, but really the LinuxDirectors themselves
aren't very overloaded. The thing which overloads them is often the monitors
which run on them.
Understand also that if LinuxDirectors were load balanced themselves it
would be very difficult to keep persistence information and such in sync. on
both directors. Packets might be handled one way by one director and another
by another. This might be okay for some protocols, but protocols which
require persistence wouldn't like this one bit.
There was once discussion on having a way to broadcast persistence
information from each linuxdirector and have each other linuxdirector pay
attention to those broadcasts and update its own tables. This way when a
director died and the other took over, the other would still keep doing
things like the first one did -- people wouldn't have to worry about loosing
their per-server session information. Nothing went much farther than
discussion though.
I hope that helps.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Raj Kumar S." <listuser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2000 4:46 AM
Subject: load balancing and lvs
> hello,
>
> i am a newbie just getting into grips with lvs. from the documentation i
> understand that the lvs cluster consists of two (let us assume) directors
> and some servers that do the processing. the directors heart beat between
> them and when one fails the other take over.
>
> my question is that is their any load balancing between the directors
> itself. from what i understand if their is't any the slave will be sitting
> idle for most of the time idle while the master will be busy distributing
> load among the servers.
>
> raj
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
