|
Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
>
> 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.
Agreed, if you have the source code. But tell me, how many proxies
out there have loadbalancing capability built-in? Yes, if you write
your own proxy for you own application I would also consider including
loadbalancing. Thank you for the comment.
Regards,
Roberto Nibali, ratz
--
mailto: `echo NrOatSz@xxxxxxxxx | sed 's/[NOSPAM]//g'`
|
