|
--- Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Wow, I don't know many people in production with kernel 2.4 :)
You're right. Maybe i'm too eager to put 2.4 to work. I think i'll
delay it a
little bit.
I just wonder, those nice guys at Sourceforge, Real.com, and so on, what
kernel and what lvs version they are using in production?... ;-)
> between LVS for 2.2 and 2.4: the NAT setup is tricky to build if you
> rely on netfilter's new connection tracking using iptables.
Why? Can you detail a little bit?
I used netfilter since 2.3.*, with plain masquerading (no LVS, just
usual masq
stuff), port forwarding and other goodies. It worked without any problem.
> The LVS/DR
> and LVS/TUN methods and the other functionalities are working in the same
> way. The other difference is that in 2.4 LVS can serve FTP without any
> help from other modules, even for LVS/NAT. In 2.2 you need ip_masq_ftp.
But isn't there an ftp module in netfilter?
> The users with more CPUs and NICs can build now more powerful
> boxes, thanks to the new 2.4 networking.
That's the idea. My future LVS will have a dual-CPU motherboard, and at
least
3 interfaces. I saw that 2.4 can use a multiCPU machine much better, so this is
why i tried to push 2.4 into production.
> But don't ignore your tests. It is always risky to jump to
> something new. Someone can be happy but may be the new LVS can't work
> for your setup. It is up to you to make your transition plan safe :)
> For me, the 2.2 kernel is good enough for LVS box and I don't need to
> change it to 2.4. I prefer to burn some real servers than to kill
> my lovely LVS box :)
Another thing is that netfilter is soooo powerful. By using 2.4, i'll
have
another strong reason to prevent Cisco to take over the LVS functionality, and
keep Linux on the director node. ;-)
(you know, with 2.4 you can do many clever Cisco-like tricks with the
packets...)
--
Florin
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/
|
