Re: question about lvs and 2.3.x, 2.4

To: Jeremy Hansen <jeremy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: question about lvs and 2.3.x, 2.4
Cc: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: <tcl@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 18:27:16 -0500 (EST)
in response to the whole testing deal, redhat supports lvs.  valinux
supports lvs.  turbolinux's clustering is based largely around lvs code, i
believe.  horms' all-in-one webserver farm "ultramonkey" project utilizes
lvs.  valinux claimed handling 50,000 connections per second with a 16
machine farm at the linuxworld expo, if i recall correctly.

i could probably dig up some other old emails to the list regarding good
performance, but jam on.


> I want to use LVS for a load balancer for the obvious reasons and I
> received two emails from the higher ups, first:
> Load Balancing under Linux is still in development or hasn't been tested.
> We do have 2 Cisco Local Directors (to provide redundancy) in NY that we
> can ship to Silicon Valley. Those can be used as load balancers. It will
> take about 4 days to configure the local Director with the latest version
> and ship them.
> I disputed this of course, having used LVS for a while now, I consider it
> to be one of the more stable projects, plus the fact that I really don't
> know where he's getting this from.  It hasn't been tested?  Uh, by who, so
> I was just confused in general by this.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>