Re: ideas about kernel masq table syncing ...

["Ted Pavlic" <tpavlic@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 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.  Another
> thought, if the concern was the LVS being the bottle neck, what
> about implement something similar to Radware that has both
> primary and 2ndary taking traffic at the same time?

I don't think Joe was talking about the LVS being a bottleneck. I think he
was talking about having plenty of LVS for high-availability.