|
> For this setup, you probably don't want to use 'VFS1' to distribute
> traffic to FS1&2. A good way to handle two distinct internet presences is
> to use a type of DNS weighted round-robin. You could either put another
> LVS box in front of FS1&2, or just add them individually to DNS. The end
> result would be two (or three) records in DNS for your cluster (VFS1, and
> either a new VFS2 or just FS1&2).
>
> With DNS weighted round-robin, you can use very short TTL for the records,
> and use a monitoring program, in conjunction with Dynamic DNS Updates to
> remove records for failed servers, or remove records when the traffic
> maxes out at the secondary location. About a days worth of scripting. This
> would very roughly approximate what Cisco Distributed Director does.
I just like to know why it's a bad idea to do this with LVS/TUN?
And is it possible to use tunneling for one virtual server and direct
routing for another on the same LVS box?
If i add a new VFS2 in front of FS1&2, could VFS1 tunnel requests to VFS2
which in turn balance the requests between FS1&2?
I'm not so sure about the DNS weighted round-robin business, wouldn't it put
high load on the DNS if i get very high traffic?
I imagine that LVS would be far more efficent than any DNS implementation (i
might be wrong).
Regards,
Johan Isacsson
MGON
|
