|
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Johan Isacsson wrote:
> 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?
You are using 4mbit of throughput not only on the secondary site, you are
using 8mbit on your primary site. Waste of bandwidth. (4mbit coming into
the primary site, being redirected back out to secondary site.) Also, your
latency will be quite high with all of those hops.
>
> 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?
Not a good idea for the same reason mentioned above.
>
> 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?
DNS will be loaded _exactly_ the same in the DNS round-robin case as it is
_right now_.
DNS is the least of your problems, here. For every connection to your
servers, you will get _one_ DNS query packet and _one_ DNS reply packet. A
total of _two_ packets for every http request (or less because of
caching). Clients are _already_ using DNS to get your address, you won't
be changing anything there.
> I imagine that LVS would be far more efficent than any DNS implementation (i
> might be wrong).
I think the latency will be much higher if you let LVS redirect every
packet of every connection over a slow link. DNS lets the clients connect
directly to each server.
--
Michael Brown
Linux Systems Group
Dell Computer
|
