Re: [PATCH][RFC]: followup ...

lvs-users

Re: [PATCH][RFC]: followup ...

To:	lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject:	Re: [PATCH][RFC]: followup ...
From:	Henrik Nordstrom <hno@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:21:23 +0100

Roberto Nibali wrote:

> > In which case you should not need LVS for load balancing...
>
> Could you please elaborate on this statement?

If you already have a "reverse" proxy which accepts all requests at the
application level and forwards them to the server, the load balancing
function is better implemented in the proxy, with all of the benefits and
none of the drawbacks from NAT based load balancing.

--
Henrik Nordstrom

[More with this subject...]

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: [PATCH][RFC]: add threshhold per RS (dirty hospital version), Roberto Nibali Re: [PATCH][RFC]: add threshhold per RS (dirty hospital version), Julian Anastasov Re: [PATCH][RFC]: followup ..., Roberto Nibali Re: [PATCH][RFC]: followup ..., Julian Anastasov Re: [PATCH][RFC]: followup ..., Roberto Nibali Re: [PATCH][RFC]: followup ..., Julian Anastasov Re: [PATCH][RFC]: followup ..., Roberto Nibali Re: [PATCH][RFC]: followup ..., Julian Anastasov Re: [PATCH][RFC]: followup ..., Henrik Nordstrom Re: [PATCH][RFC]: followup ..., Roberto Nibali Re: [PATCH][RFC]: followup ..., Henrik Nordstrom <= Re: [PATCH][RFC]: followup ..., Roberto Nibali

Previous by Date:	Re: can LVS be run ON the firewall box?, Brian Edmonds
Next by Date:	PROBLEM COMPILING THE KERNEL, dcg
Previous by Thread:	Re: [PATCH][RFC]: followup ..., Roberto Nibali
Next by Thread:	Re: [PATCH][RFC]: followup ..., Roberto Nibali
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]