|
On Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 11:32:46PM -0400, Donald Ball wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Apr 2000, Horms wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 11:19:09PM -0400, Donald Ball wrote:
> > > http://linuxvirtualserver.org/arp.html
> > >
> > > I added these rules to the ipchains configuration on the real server:
> > >
> > > ipchains -A input -j REDIRECT -d 206.66.49.220 -p tcp
> > > ipchains -A input -j REDIRECT -d 206.66.49.220 -p udp
> > >
> > > (206.66.49.220 is the virtual ip address, of course)
> >
> > I've seen that idea somewhere before :)
> >
> > You may want to look at using aliases on the loopack device
> > instead if you are using a 2.2.14 kernel as according to
> > Rusty and some anecdotal evidence there are performance issues
> > with having trandparent proxying compiled into the kernel, let
> > alone actually using the feature.
> >
> > You can have a single ip alias cover a network using something along
> > the lines of
> >
> > ifconfig lo:0 192.168.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 mtu 150
>
> Aha, I see you wrote the suggestion on the page I referenced. You might
> want to document the potential performance problems you mention on that
> page. Hell, you might want to link to that page from, well, somewhere....
> the only reason I found it was by trolling through the mailing list
> archives.
Can someone who maintains the documentation look into making this so.
> > > and everything started working fine. It's a tad onerous to create the
> > > rulesets for all of the virtual ip addresses, but much simpler than
> > > maintaining 'n' seperate copies of the apache configuration file, so I'm
> > > happy.
> >
> > If you look at the fwmark functionality in 0.9.10, and your
> > virtual ipaddresses are (somewhat) contiguous then you shoudn't
> > have too many rules to write.
>
> Hrm? fwmark? May I ask for a reference? Is this something that one can
> control via piranha?
The man page for the latest ipvsadm. I don't believe that piranha
supports this yet.
--
Horms
|
