|
Not to beat this with a stick...
But am I right in assuming that:
> ipvsadm -A -f 1 -s rr -p 1800
> ipvsadm -a -f 1 -r 216.69.192.201:0 -g
> ipvsadm -a -f 1 -r 216.69.192.202:0 -g
Covers both tcp and udp?
Sorry for, again, pulverizing this with a stick.
All the best --
Ted
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Pavlic" <tpavlic@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Horms" <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "'lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: Announce ldirectord version 1.13
> > The fwmark support in LVS is designed to permit large numbers of
> > virtual servers with the same IP address. It has the advantage of
> > simplfying the amount of _kernel_ configuration that has to be done
> > which is a big win, even if this is automated by a user space
application.
> >
> > Briefly this is how it works.
> ...
> > e.g.
> >
> > ipvsadm -A -f 1 -s rr
> > ipvsadm -a -f 1 -r 192.168.6.3:80 -m
> > ipvsadm -a -f 1 -r 192.168.6.2:80 -m
> ...
>
> Huh -- that's interesting. I haven't been keeping myself updated on the
new
> features added to IPVS. That little trick there could make things a lot
> smoother on the LVS -- it would take a great deal less time to bring up
and
> down real servers.
>
> A couple of items:
>
> First of all, for me to enable
>
> * persistent connections
> * to every port
> * using direct routing,
>
> would this do the trick:
>
> ipvsadm -A -f 1 -s rr -p 1800
> ipvsadm -a -f 1 -r 216.69.192.201:0 -g
> ipvsadm -a -f 1 -r 216.69.192.202:0 -g
>
> ?
>
> <sigh> Well the rest of that makes sense. I suppose I have some decision
> making to do. I'm still not sure I really want to use
ldirectord/heartbeat.
> I'm almost positive I don't want to use heartbeat in my particular
> situation. I'm pretty happy with the solution I have there...
>
> However I really do appreciate the tip about the fwmark stuff -- That
might
> make things a lot nicer. :)
>
>
>
>
|
