|
Hi,
> And you think I care :)
:)
> > 2. Some parts of the code is commented. Is this a part from the
> > proposal?
>
> This because there is a collision between the fwmark based farms and this
> code. We are not using fwmark based farms so I choose to ignore those for
> now.
But for my setup the fwmark is crucial, you cannot just ignore it.
> I did not expect you to accept this. It is a short term solution for us,
> until other measurements have been made to integrate iptables rules and ipvs
> to not require a overly complex iptables ruleset in order to accept
> IPVS traffic.
I don't think this is the case, see my comment below.
> For a start you need a LVS setup with more than one real interface receiving
> client traffic for this to be of any use. Some clients (due to routing
> outside the LVS server) comes in on one interface, other clients on another
> interface. In this setup you might not want to have a equally complex routing
> table on the actual LVS server itself.
I've been doing this for 2 years now, I don't know what complex routing
you mean. Maybe I completely misunderstand you. Is it possible that you
have a setup where different clients comming from different CIPs are
requiring the same LVS-service template, they however come in on different
NIC's or is it that you have multiple LVS-service templates used to load-
balance different client server zone through different interfaces?
Thank you for clarification,
Roberto Nibali, ratz
--
mailto: `echo NrOatSz@xxxxxxxxx | sed 's/[NOSPAM]//g'`
|
