|
On 2000-08-07T21:47:36,
Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx> said:
> - what is the main goal? Some things are not "possible" to
> implement.
Having a backup LVS takeover from the main one without losing a single
active connection.
I would be happy with a two node solution for now, though n > 2 is even nicer
;-)
> - is breaking the current connections fatal?
Yes.
We can already do this using heartbeat, piranha or any of the cold standby
solutions.
> 1 to 5 seconds
> without director before switching to backup one?
No. TCP/IP will take care of this.
> - are we going to replicate each state change or to grab a
> connection table snapshot?
Each state change is the only reasonable way.
Upon start of one machine, we obviously need to grab a connection table
snapshot once and queue the pending updates.
> - is there a requirement for the used transport? Can this
> transport be universal, i.e. export data to user space daemon
> and then send the data using any type of transport?
I would prefer this - netlink should make this easily possible.
> - Is it required the remote director to be with same CPU type
> if we send binary data?
This will not be a problem, we can document it as a prerequisite for this to
work.
> - What can be the time to replicate 128MB connection table? 1 second,
> 1 minute? What is the acceptable time?
"As soon as possible".
Sincerely,
Lars Marowsky-Brée <lmb@xxxxxxx>
Development HA
--
Perfection is our goal, excellence will be tolerated. -- J. Yahl
|
