LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: newbie, which need an urgent answer

To: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: newbie, which need an urgent answer
From: Filipe Carvalho <fcarvalho@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 00:32:14 +0100
Lorn Kay wrote:


I have built a cluster that is something like what you have described (without CODA) and have found that some of what you want can be done this way.

Two machines can load share with LVS with one acting as the director (I used NAT) but things quickly become more complicated when the primary Director fails and heartbeat has to fire up a new director on the backup server that only delivers packets locally (or write a whole new script that doesn't bother with a one-node director). It can be done but it is more complex than I think it should be. A better solution (IMO) would be to just use two boxes as directors, and then offer services from inside the cluster from Real Servers (much easier to maintain clone Real Servers and grow your cluster that way--see http://systemimager.org/).

For file replication between the servers you can use RSYNC if you don't have to worry abount file/record locking, but I think a better solution would be to add a Network Attached Storage (NAS) device to the cluster (sort of "behind" the Real Servers). Then use NFS between the NAS and the Real Servers and let NFS take care of file/record locking problems. (I suppose you could use RAID and NFS on a Linux box as a NAS server instead of a product from EMC or Network Appliance, etc.) And if you are worried about a single NAS box use some type of snap-shot method to a stand-by NAS server.

In my opinion this would help to keep things simple and much easier to maintain so that each box only has to assume one role: Director, Real Server or NAS.

Just my 2 cents...

--K

        

        First, to thanks the quick answer.


I also have think in an extra linux box as NAS server, but i've a problem with that. I will have users, with their homes in that cluster, so, if the NAS fails, all cluster 'fail', and i want to avoid that.

        Filipe Carvalho




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>