Re: [lvs-users] Best Alternative to ldirectord

To: "LinuxVirtualServer. org users mailing list." <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [lvs-users] Best Alternative to ldirectord
From: Patrick Schaaf <netdev@xxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 10:54:26 +0200
Am 07.08.2015 10:47 schrieb "Eric Robinson" <eric.robinson@xxxxxxxxx>:
> The thing that confuses me at the moment is the required product mix if I
use keepalived. Right now I'm using the Corosync+Pacemaker+LVS+lidirectord
stack. If I switch to keepalived, how much does that replace, and why? From
reading the keepalived docs (which appear to be a decade old) it would seem
that keepalived wants to be a do-it-all solution, so I guess I'd have to
throw away what I know about Corosync and Pacemaker? And is HAproxy really

Are you talking about standalone loadbalancers, or some kind of mixed setup
on the servers themselves?

For standalone loadbalancers keepalived (with VRRP for IP takeover) is all
you need, maybe augmented with conntrackd for nonloadbalanced connection
sync / failover takeup.

best regards
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>