Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[lvs\-users\]\s+LVS\s+\&\s+Question\s+on\s+Implementing\s+an\s+Active\/Active\s+Load\s+Balancer\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[lvs\-users\]\s+LVS\s+\&\s+Question\s+on\s+Implementing\s+an\s+Active\/Active\s+Load\s+Balancer\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [lvs-users] LVS & Question on Implementing an Active/Active Load Balancer (score: 1): Author: Anders Henke <anders.henke@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 16:02:01 +0100; Your question isn't something I'd expect any FAQ for, it is more of an advanced configuration, and does raise multiple concerns. Active/Active: is there a strong reason for doing so? Why I'm asking:; /html/lvs-users/2015-02/msg00036.html (15,124 bytes)
2. [lvs-users] LVS & Question on Implementing an Active/Active Load Balancer (score: 1): Author: Barry Haycock <barryh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 21:47:45 +1100; I am looking to build for a client an Active/Active load balancer supporting ~5000 machines Previously we have looked at implementing this solution using pacemaker/corosync/haproxy on RHEL 6.4 but th; /html/lvs-users/2015-02/msg00035.html (9,410 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]