|
-----Original Message-----
From: lvs-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Graeme Fowler
Sent: Thu 1/3/2008 6:18 AM
To: LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list.
Subject: Re: [lvs-users] LVS in an Active/Active configuration
>Hi
>On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 13:38 -0500, Matthew Crocker wrote:
><snip excellent topology description>
>Aha, equal cost paths using OSPF. Neat, I hadn't considered that - nice
>to see someone making proper use of L3 "trickery" for once. And it
>completely removes the necessity for your upstream network devices to
>make use of ARP, which simplifies things even more. The removal of the
>"live" IP addresses from your directors' external interfaces makes
>things even simpler.
>
>Why didn't I think of that? ;-)
>> LVS-NAT won't work because of the requirement that returning traffic
>> has to pass through the correct director. LVS-DR would probably work
>> fine, the real servers could then send the return traffic directly
>> back to the routers.
>As I previously mentioned, you could split your realservers into two
>groups; or you could take Chris Barry's suggestion of running the sync
>daemon in both master and slave state on both directors to keep the
>tables bang up to date (inasmuch as that's possible).
>Using DR negates that level of complexity - and because you're routing,
>rather than switching, traffic to the directors you don't need to solve
>any ARP problems.
>>From here, Matt, this looks like a very good solution.
>Graeme
Hmmm. Being a victim of your own genius, Matt, it looks like someone has
a HowTo to write...
;)
<<winmail.dat>>
|
