LVS
lvs-users
[Top] [All Lists]
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org
<prev [Date] next> <prev [Thread] next>

Re: none linux Load Balancer

from [David Bain] [Permanent Link]
To: "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list." <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: none linux Load Balancer
From: David Bain <pigeonflight@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 18:50:30 -0500 
Pardon my ignorance. I'm on the learning curve.
So effectively, this means that the minimum number of machines in an lvs
configuration would be 3.

On Mon, 2004-05-24 at 06:12, Joseph Mack wrote:
> David Bain wrote:
> > 
> > It seems to me that the load balancer for an LVS setup, need not be a linux 
> > box.
> > Is this a reasonable assumption?
> 
> the LVS code is specific for the linux kernel.
> 
> Joe
-- 

-------------------------
Low Carb Dieting News at
http://lowcarb.alteroo.com
[More with this subject...]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date:  OT: Linux/iptables pfsync equivalent, Josh Tolley
Next by Date:  Re: none linux Load Balancer, jkreger
Previous by Thread:  Re: none linux Load Balancer, Joseph Mack
Next by Thread:  Re: none linux Load Balancer, jkreger
Indexes:  [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]