|
Hi Peter,
Peter Mueller wrote:
I just saw that Ratz beat me to the punch (rats!), but maybe this meager
summation will help you anyway.
Well, that's because you're still trying to get back sober back there in
California ;)
In LVS there are different algorithms that can provide different ways of
load-balancing, so essentially like a LD on steroids. Some of the bonuses :
- LVS however doesn't bridge like localdirector.
- 3 different topology choices to choose from (including support of
application server load balancing over segregate networks, for example
different ISPs).
If I'm not completely wrong, C-LD provided NAT mode and kind of LVS-DR
which they call triangulation.
- inexpensive (free).
- you get the source!
- You don't get a complete crap TCP stack implementation that drops 10%
of the NAT'd packets under a SYN-flood when fragmentation filtering is
enabled. (Cisco really starts hating me I think)
Negatives
- platform contains moving parts (hardrive).
Mine never move, they spin, but nevertheless, why is this a remarkable
negative point?
- development/setup time for each install is greater than prepackaged
solutions like BigIP or LD.
Redhat provides a package: piranha. Is this more complex to setup then
to configure a BigIP where you have to plug in a monitor and a keyboard
and first answer dozens of brain damaged questions before you're kindly
asked to give username and passwd to use the GUI? The real big fun is to
figure out what the hell they mean with Secure-NAT.
Sorry, couldn't resist. I hope you don't mind. And I think the OP wasn't
on the quest for a load balancer.
I wish you a nice day,
Roberto Nibali, ratz
| 