LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: High Availability

To: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: High Availability
From: Paul Baker <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 11:29:24 -0500
On Monday, April 15, 2002, at 07:51 PM, Horms wrote:

On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 12:54:54PM -0700, Peter Mueller wrote:
I have a test LVS system running using NAT.  So far things have been
working really well.  I want to upgrade the system so that
I will have 2
load balancers using mon, fake and the coda file system.  I was
wondering if anyone had any suggestions as to how I should approach
this.

Ultra monkey, using Linux-HA is the best tested of these.

Another one in development is the keepalived, vrrpd setup
of Alexandre Cassen.

Joe, do you know if ultramonkey is still under development? Last release is
april 2001!  Can we expect a 1.x-LVS update?

Ultra Monkey is somewhat out of date, supporting RH 6.x, and 2.2.x kernels.
I have been considering updating this given recent requests for
a free alternative to do Load Balancing and/or HA straight out of the
box.

As we are talking about this I'd like to do a bit of market research
to find out what people think Ultra Monkey should do. In particular
would people be happy with a set of Debian packages...

Ding ding ding ding we have a winner!! Bring on the .debs!

So yeah I guess, the only feature request I have is for deb packages instead of rpm's. If I think of anything else I'll let you know. Oh oh oh! A GUI frontend to the whole thing too would be pretty sweet. You know something that basically just showed you sort of the output of ipvsadm, and you could point & click servers on and off etc. :-D It could be called Ultra Monkey X. Although if you go through all that effort I want to make sure it is worth it for me to put in the time to do the full upgrade deal to kernel 2.4 etc. From what I hear most people still trust ipchains more than iptables for doing firewalling. Since my load balancers are doing double duty as firewalls and directors, this is very important to me. So I probably won't make the jump to kernel 2.4 and lvs-1.x, unless someone can point me to some hard evidence that iptables is the definite way to go and I would be completely foolish NOT to upgrade my current setup that has been running perfectly without one single problem since it went in to production in May of 2001. Hey, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

--Paul Baker



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