I am wondering if it is possible to have two LVS directors, each which
update the other with their connections table, so that either can take
over for the other, should it become necessary.
For example, I might have two directors, and two "high availability"
addresses (VRRP/keepalived/something else). Each director is preferred
for one address, and the backup for the other.
If one fails, then I want not only the IP address to fail over, but
for the LVS connection table to fail over, so that existing
connections continue to run.
So, can LVS support this "multi-master" sync? What I have seen so far
seems to indicate that you can only have a "master" and a "slave".
Before anyone responds back that I am doing the wrong thing, I'll
respond to the two reasons I am expecting to hear:
* "Why not just have master/standby?" - I try to avoid having
standby systems wherever possible, as in my experience the time you
find out that there was a problem on the standby, is when you need it
the most. Better to have a load shared system, with failover, so that
you know about faults immediately.
* "If you have enough load for two machines, then when one fails
over, you won't have enough capacity!" - I actually want to try and
scale this up to a N+1 system, but I need to figure out if I can do
* "You just want the moon on a stick!" - Well, yes. I'd rather
figure out what can be done, and *then* compromise.
Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at:
LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users