Re: [lvs-users] LVS Use Sanity Check

To: " users mailing list." <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [lvs-users] LVS Use Sanity Check
From: Graeme Fowler <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 16:24:55 +0000
On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 11:57 +0000, Darren.Mansell@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> We are using LVS in quite a large way (volume, distribution and
> importance) in solutions that we have implemented for our business.


> As I said above, this seems to work absolutely fine in production use,
> we rely heavily on it and haven't encountered any issues (that weren't
> application related) that we haven't been able to resolve. The only
> doubt we have is that this kind of set up doesn't seem to be
> commonplace, everyone else seems to use separate real servers and
> virtual servers and I have to wonder why more people don't run like
> this.

I've used LVS both ways - in fact, on one occasion I mixed the two!

Having separate realservers allows the system to scale far more cleanly;
if the system is designed as (say) a 2-node LVS and that's the long-term
plan, then using the "streamlined" approach by collapsing services onto
the directors themselves is fine.

As David has mentioned, if you're in a situation where you have
real-live clustered file services, it's probably easier to separate the
directors and realservers. I've always tried to use NFS as my backing
store for data (usually web or email hosting) so the STONITH system
isn't needed, nor is any quorum or cluster service manager gubbins.


Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at: mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
or go to

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