LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

RE: [LVS - NAT] alternatives

To: "'lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 'Nicolas Chiappero' <Nicolas.Chiappero@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [LVS - NAT] alternatives
From: Peter Mueller <pmueller@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 12:33:51 -0700
> I'm planning to handle between 20 000 000 and 30 000 000 hits/day.

With that much expected traffic I'd setup a LVS-DR solution.  With Joe's
scripts (or ultramonkey) you shouldn't have too much trouble.. especially
the second time around! :)

> 
> I have the choice to setup N IP aliases on each realserver with http
> server listening to alias1:80 and alias2:80, etc. ; or setup only one
> IP alias per realserver and make http server listen to N 
> different ports.
> 

do whatever seems simpler, more stable, and more in line with your
theoretical best performing architecture.

> So, I'm wondering if it is possible to setup another 
> configration using
> other LVS types like maybe Transparent Proxy. At this point I have no
> more ideas... Any tips ?
> 

I use ultramonkey + LVS-DR (single transparent proxy on RS) and am very
pleased with it.  If I was starting over from scratch today I'd probably use
LVS-DR with direct code from the 'gang' + ldirectord on a 2.2 kernel (2.4's
still coming out every day it seems..).  I definitely wouldn't use nat, even
on 2.4.  Sorry  I just don't see the advantage on a site expecting 20
million hits a day.

Good luck and happy weekend!

Peter


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