On Wed, 30 Nov 2011, Dean Scothern wrote:
> On Wrote, 30 Nov 2011, Joseph Mack wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2011, Dean Scothern wrote:
>>> 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 http://www.wm7d.net/azproj.shtml
Homepage http://www.austintek.com/ It's GNU/Linux!
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