LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: ideas about kernel masq table syncing ...

To: Joseph Mack <mack@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: ideas about kernel masq table syncing ...
Cc: Ratz <ratz@xxxxxx>, Wensong Zhang <wensong@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Wayne <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 09:48:23 -0700
At 12:38 PM 8/7/00 -0400, Joseph Mack wrote:
>On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, Wayne wrote:
>
>> >Parallel port only works for 2 machines. I know you don't want to rely on
>> >IP when IP could be hosed, but Ted elects a director from a set of peers.
>> >
>> >It would be nice to do this on a medium like (ethernet) which is
>> >many-to-many.
>> 
>> Sorry for throwing my 2 cents out, but I think LVS box could never
>> be the bottle neck for 99.999% situations.  If we are thinking balancing
>> on the wide area networks, that would be totally different. 
>
>I'm looking for a solution where any of "n" machines can become the
>director, where n>2.

Joe,

How about have n ethernet cards in one machine, could that serve
the same purpose?

Wayne


>Joe
>--
>Joseph Mack mack@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>



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