|
If you are only doing lvs-nat and you happen to run Red Hat Linux, then
Piranha is a fine choice. The interface is reasonably intuitive so if
you don't care to gain a thorough understanding of how lvs works, you
can likely get away with using piranha to configure it for you. On the
other hand, if you need to do lvs-dr or use fw marks or anything exotic,
then piranha is not for you.
On an entirely different note - ultra monkey is a very nice packaging of
all the things, EXCEPT a gui management interface, that one would need
for load balancing. I use it on 74 servers (37 pairs) to provide
fail-over for an application which has no inherent fault tolerance. I
used to use it for a web farm as well, but I switched to a Red Hat
conforming LVS along with piranha in order to make it easier for web
admin types to adjust web farm host details.
On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 11:35 -0700, Dan Trainor wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Graham David Purcocks M.A.(Oxon.) wrote:
> > Ultramonkey is a pre-packaged complete implementation of LVS, heartbeat
> > and ldirectord. Which gives you (in order) load balancing, director
> > failover and real server monitoring.
> >
> > Piranha is RedHats offerering of the same.
> >
> > Keepalived is, I think, equivalent to ldirectord but I'm not sure as I
> > don't use it.
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> >
> > On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 18:21, Dan Trainor wrote:
> >
> > Hello, all -
> >
> > Once again I call upon the help of you fine people in helping me better
> > understand exactly what I'm looking at here. Before we get started, I'd
> > first like to thank you all who have helped me in the past. You're an
> > incredible help.
> >
> > I've been reading an excellent article by Mr. Zhang on linux-mag.com,
> > http://www.linux-mag.com/2003-11/clusters_01.html. If you have not yet
> > read it, I highly suggest that you do. It is very informative.
> >
> > While reading this article, UltraMonkey, Piranha, and Keepalived were
> > briefly mentioned. Although there was a little intro given about all
> > three, their purpose seemed a bit fuzzy to me.
> >
> > It seems to me that all three of these services provide the same type of
> > service - they all determine which node is up/working/doing stuff, and
> > deals with this circumstance as it sees appropriate. What I don't quite
> > understand is the subtle differences between the three, or if I'm just
> > completely wrong here. All three describe themselves as dealing with
> > high availability and load balancing, but I can't really find a
> > comparrison between the three.
> >
> > If anyone might be able to point me in the right direction, or just give
> > me some links as to where I can read about the differences between the
> > three, I would greatly appreciate it.
> >
> > Thanks
> > -dant
>
> Thanks for the reply, Graham -
>
> It doesn't look like there's been much development on Piranha in quite
> some time here. Would it be safe to conclude that UltraMonkey may be my
> best bet here, with consideration given to the fact that I'm quite new
> at this as of yet?
>
> Thanks
> - -dant
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFDc5LzhTPx3xy3bu0RAs7FAKCUxPDH4uKq8H93BhIuSWMTLL2mVACeJKTP
> pwsVIgw+/rM31hw+VHyh3y8=
> =8I3M
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> or go to http://www.in-addr.de/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
|
