|
Derek Glidden wrote:
>
> Ted Pavlic wrote:
> >
> > I have a feeling that it has something to do with the NAT rather than LVS.
> >
> > I use LVS to load balance about 1024 VIPs onto 4 real servers using VS-DR. I
> > have not had any problems with only 4096 file handles. I'm very sure that I
> > doubt I use even 1000 file handles under normal operation.
>
> That's the second response along those lines that I've heard regarding
> using VS-DR over VS-NAT. The reason I picked the VS-NAT method was
> because I had seen in a couple of different places in the documentation
> that VS-NAT was really the only fully-functional method at the moment.
> Maybe the LinuxVirtualServer.org website is outdated, then? VS-DR would
> actually fit our current network model better anyway.
VS-NAT was the first method produced and the original documents (which are
still on the website to give historical perspective) reflect this. There
were also a lot of problems with VS-DR with kernel 2.2 in solving
the arp problem.
There are now many solutions to the arp problem and real-servers have
be found to work with all operating systems tried (including NT).
VS-DR scales to higher load (packet throughput) than does VS-NAT
and is the choice for high load situations.
Ultramonkey is a setup for failing out a director. The underlying LVS
is the same.
Joe
--
Joseph Mack PhD, Senior Systems Engineer, Lockheed Martin
contractor to the National Environmental Supercomputer Center,
mailto:mack.joseph@xxxxxxx ph# 919-541-0007, RTP, NC, USA
|
