|
Ricardo Kleemann wrote:
>
> Thanks.
>
> Maybe I should have phrased it differently. I'm just wondering how much
> disk space is used/required by LVS, and if it is at all memory-intensive.
>
> Would a system with 64Mb of ram and a very small amount of disk space
> available work?
In our server we have a P133 with less then 64M and 1G af drive space
which has plenty of space left on it acting as director. I would bet a
director could be built on less then 300M if one had to....this little
box also does NOT appear to be overloaded by the cluster.
But we are not a very high traffic server.....this thing handles all
that we get and more. We tested it once on the LAN and hit it with
X,000,000 hits in one night and it handled it just fine - don't remember
what the actual number was, but it was more then a year's worth of
traffic....I seem to be thinking 25 or 250 million. But we did not do
any database access, only SSI if even that. The bottleneck was the Real
Servers, not the director or NFS server, with DB access that might
change some but would not effect the director at all.
The other servers are:
1 233 with 64
2 266 with 64 (one of which is the File Sharing and DB server)
Of course we really need to up the memory if we expect to survive, but
for now it is doing just fine. I think that CPU wise we are 'OK', and
if we find that we are not we can just add more....that is the nice
thing about LVS.
What I guess I am saying is that it does not take very much at all to
build an opperational LVS cluster. This thing runs very smoothly and
has not had a single crash since it was brought up in late
June....though the connection to the internet has not been very stable,
but that is not my fault - that was code red.
If you would like to see it in operation goto www.masks.org. The entire
thing runs on Linux using Apache, PHP, and Postgresql.
|
