Re: [lvs-users] localnode question

To: " users mailing list." <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [lvs-users] localnode question
From: Joseph Mack NA3T <jmack@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 04:41:44 -0800 (PST)
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011, Dean Scothern wrote:

> On Wrote, 30 Nov 2011, Joseph Mack wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2011, Dean Scothern wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> Is there a way to either disable or bypass the localnode behaviour in ipvs?
>> other than not using it?
> What alternatives are there?

1 and 0 are the only two possibilities in a binary system.

localnode is uses a feature of the kernel. It's in LVS 
because it was possible to do. It isn't a recommended 
feature for a production LVS. You can make a demo LVS out of 
two boxes but that's about it.

> I have a two box solution in which both nodes are real servers.
> The boxes are connected via their primary interfaces.
> Exim(mail) is running on both. Pacemaker is used for HA and can migrate the 
> two exims in the usual way.
> I want to load balance between the two nodes and as I'm not allowed to use 
> lvs-dr I've tried to use lvs-nat.
> To this end I've added a secondary network and again used pacemaker to manage 
> the secondary VIPS (and ldirectord).

your diagram didn't survive e-mail. Do you have a mixture of 
tabs and blanks?

> I really don't want to add a separate load balancer cluster for the sake of 
> two machines.

OK. I don't see any other way out of it.


Joseph Mack NA3T EME(B,D), FM05lw North Carolina
jmack (at) wm7d (dot) net - azimuthal equidistant map
generator at
Homepage It's GNU/Linux!

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>