LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

RE: Geographically distant load balancing (er, I mean failover)

To: "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list." <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Geographically distant load balancing (er, I mean failover)
From: Joseph Mack NA3T <jmack@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:11:23 -0800 (PST)
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Dan Brown wrote:

Well, the bureaucrats here seem to have this nagging doubt about dumpster
fires.  There was a hosting company in town who had four separate ISP lines
all coming in off the same poll behind their building.

great planning.

One day the dumpster
behind the building, right beside the poll, caught fire (cigarette probably)
and took out all four connections at once and subsequently they were down
for about two weeks before they regained connectivity.  During that time
they lost 80%-90% of their clients and went out of business shortly
thereafter.

they'll be back, doing the same thing elsewhere

Failover, as far as I am concerned, could have a lag as long as five minutes
although this would probably not be acceptable in the middle of the day.
Our local LVS takes over a minute from failover reaction to the takeover of
every last IP.  We create/run websites, they aren't critical and they don't
save lives.  I'd prefer to have colocation within the same city but as it
happens the nearest colocation facility (provided by the ISP itself) happens
to be 650km (+400mi.) away.

you'll need the routing info (eg via BGP) to do the failover and you'll have to get it from the ISP.

If the ISP owns both facilities, why aren't they offering routing failover (for $) themselves?

Joe

--
Joseph Mack NA3T EME(B,D), FM05lw North Carolina
jmack (at) wm7d (dot) net - azimuthal equidistant map
generator at http://www.wm7d.net/azproj.shtml
Homepage http://www.austintek.com/ It's GNU/Linux!

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