LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: Is it more complicated than this?

To: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Is it more complicated than this?
From: Horms <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 08:21:36 -0700
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 10:08:30AM -0500, Bickel, Sean wrote:
> I have just set up a test server with LVS. I've gone over the documenation
> in the how-tos and the mini-howtos. I was not able to get the configure
> script to work so I just went through it trying to see what it did.
> 
> I was planning on using the Transparent Proxy method on the real servers and
> whatever the normal Direct Route method is on the Director. Everything is
> under 2.2 kernel linux.
> 
> I set up an alias to eth0 on the director with the VIP.
> I then added the following rules to the director machine
> ipvsadm -C
> ipvsadm -A -t VIP:80 -s lc
> ipvsadm -a -t VIP:80 -r RIP1
> ipvsadm -a -t VIP:80 -r RIP2
> 
> Then on the real machines I setup apache to listen to port 80 of the VIP and
> ran the following.
> ipchains -A input -j REDIRECT http -d VIP http -p tcp
> 
> This all appears to work. But I'm worried, considering the documentation,
> this seems a bit simplistic.
> Is there some problem I may run into with the way I set this up?

It looks good to me. The nice thing about using transparent proxying is
that it is a realativley simple way to get around the "arp problem" when
using Direct Routing. On the down side if your clients are running 2.2.x
kernels then even having transparent proxying compiled in has a performance
hit (that may or may not be an issue for you).  If you want something to
read/do take a look at
http://linuxvirtualserver.org/Joseph.Mack/performance/single_realserver_performance.html
for a discussion of the performance issues.

-- 
Horms
 horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx 
 http://vergenet.net/~horms/


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>