|
Jim,
They should all work fine, but why add the complexity ?
Active-Active is only usefull if one director can't handle the load (and
considering its LVS you be talking one heck of a load on any hardware.)
And if one fails - by definition you won't be able to handle the load on
just one....
And if load is your problem then DR or TUN is the way to go.
Jim Miller wrote:
Hello everyone,
I'm going to begin dipping my toes into LVS and an active-active director
configuration.
When implementing an active-active director configuration is it best to
implement LVS-NAT, LVS-TUN or LVS-DR?
Thanks,
Jim
--
Regards,
Malcolm Turnbull.
Loadbalancer.org Limited
Office: +44 (0)870 443 8779
Mobile: +44 (0)7715 770523
http://www.loadbalancer.org/
" When a single point of failure is not an option"
Why not try our online demonstration
<http://www.loadbalancer.org/demo.html> ? Or get answers to common
questions <http://www.loadbalancer.org/fud.html> ?
| 