|
The real question is, has anyone made any headway with getting LVS-NAT to
work with *REAL* Virtual Web Servers?
Michael McConnell
Senior Network Engineer
VocalScape Communications Inc.
http://www.vocalscape.com/
--
Perfection is our goal, excellence will be tolerated. -- J. Yahl
> > After trying to use Direct Routing on an ATM network I discovered that
> > because of the ATM it is not possible to have duplicate MAC addresses
for
> a
> > single IP. The cluster will be a telnet / compute cluster which will
load
> > balance telnet, ftp, and SSH traffic.
>
> Hm. That's interesting.
>
> Now are you saying that the ATM doesn't like:
>
> * the director ARPing for those addresses and the real servers sending
> responses for them
> -- If this is the case, rather than having your director ARP for the
> addresses, ROUTE the addresses directly to the director.
>
> * packets destined for each VIP heading toward different real servers at
> different times
> * packets from the same VIPs coming from different real servers
> -- If one of these are the case, have you tried LVS-TUN?
>
> You should be able to implement LVS-TUN similarly to how one would
implement
> LVS-DR. That is, the actual network topology won't be that different...
> However -- becasue it lives much much higher up than your ATM network, I
> imagine you won't have the same MAC address problems.
>
> Take a look at:
>
> http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/VS-IPTunneling.html
>
> It should still perform better than VS-NAT.
>
> > To solve the problem I am proposing the following setup:
> >
> ...
> > So... Each Real-Server will have both access to a private network for
> > cluster communications, and the public network for file-server / admin
> > communications. BUT all traffic for the cluster VIP must travel via the
> > director to ensure that there is only one machine communicating via the
> VIP.
> > I know this will probably create all sorts of routing problems but this
is
> > the only solution that I can think of.
>
> I see no problems with the configuration you propose using VS-NAT, and I
> think you'll find the routing won't be too difficult, (that is -- it won't
> be anything special. It'll be as exotic as anyone else who has had to put
> multiple network cards in one machine before and use all of them
> simultaneously) BUT I really think that you might be able to stick with
> VS-DR or even slightly change to VS-TUN (if your real servers support it,
of
> course) and be just as happy if not happier and not have to worry about
any
> of the multiple NIC complications.
>
> Best of luck.
>
> All the best --
> Ted
>
>
>
|
