|
On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, [iso-8859-1] "Daniel Erdös" wrote:
> How many connections did you really handled? What are your impressions and
> experiences in "real life"? What are the problems?
I've shouted rather alot recently about how good the LVS is in the past so
browsing the mail archives for info I've posted about our LVS may help you
convince your boss. (After all if it's OK for about 2 million end
users...)
Problems - LVS provides a load balancing mechanism, nothing more, nothing
less, and does it *extremely* well. If your back end real servers are
flakey in anyway, then unless you have monitoring systems in place to take
those machines out of service as soon as there are problems with those
servers, then users will experience glitches in service.
NB, this is essentially a real server stability issue, not an LVS issue -
you'd need good monitoring in place anyway if you weren't using LVS!
Another plus in LVS's favour in something like this over the commercial
boxes, is the fact that the load balancer is a Unix type box - meaning
your monitoring can be as complex or simple as you like. For example load
balancing based on wlc could be supplemented by server info sent to the
director.
I'm sure there's many more success stories, (aside from those on
http://www.LinuxVirtualServer.org//lmb/LVS-Announce.html) and would also
love to hear them !
Michael.
--
National & Local Web Cache Support R: G117
Manchester Computing T: 0161 275 7195
University of Manchester F: 0161 275 6040
Manchester UK M13 9PL M: Michael.Sparks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lvs-users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: lvs-users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
