LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

RE: Local Load balancing - multiple services per IP

To: "'LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list.'" <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Local Load balancing - multiple services per IP
Cc: malcom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Philip Hayward <Philip.Hayward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 10:25:44 -0000
Hi Sergio,

I don't know if what you have asked for is possible. As an alternative
though, and as you are using private IP addresses, you could add two IPs to
the NIC and bind each application to the same port but on a different IP.

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: Sergio Freire [mailto:sergio-s-freire@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 06 December 2004 10:16
To: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: malcom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Local Load balancing - multiple services per IP


Malcom,
lets see if I can explain better. I would like to have different instances
of some service running on different ports, but on the same machine, because
for some reason they are different somehow:

 - lets say that one instance uses a local database while other instance
uses a remote database, this is just hypotethic, another case would be one
instance running on some partition of the hard disk and the other instance
running on another disk; another more realistic scenario would be having
several web servers on the same machine and we want to make some load
balancing between them.

Is it possible to configure this? Several real servers (which point to the
same IP) with different ports associated with the service? In this case i
would have to user masquerade right? What would be a config like?

Is this  a possible one (because it does not work for me)?

virtual=10.112.64.112:80
       real=10.112.64.113:8080 masq
       real=10.112.64.113:80 masq
       real=10.112.64.113:81 masq

Thanks for your time.
Sérgio Freire


---------------------------------------------------
>Sergio,
>
>Why would you want 1 VIP to map to 1 RIP but different ports ? Doesn't 
>make sense (well not to me any way)
>
>You can use firewall marks if you want DR or TUN, it will also help if
>what you actually want is those ports to be treated as a group i.e.
>you wanted all conections to 6001,6002,6003 to be persistently bound to 
>one real server (which would make more sense ?)






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