|
actually, i have used heartbeat for cluster control, and it proved
problematic. it is being actively developed, but also has alot of problems
sipping into every release. It's not mature. after 3 weeks i was back to
heartbeat.
and also, i do active-active with heartbeat - it's just a matter of
splitting your services to 2 VIP's, and setting one VIP as primary on member
1, and the second on member 2. I do currently use keepalived instead of
ldirectord though - seems stable for that perpose .
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Mueller" <pmueller@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 1:54 AM
Subject: RE: Director Redundacy options? VRRP, heartbeat, ldirectord?
> > I have been evaluating the various failover options as of late- I
> > wanted to get other's opinions and the pros/cons of using one
> > solution
> > over another...namely, VRRP, heartbeat, and ldirectord.
> > Currently we use
> > heartbeat in production, and it works well. I'm curious to
> > how well each
> > of these will scale, and of course, the stability of each option. Any
> > and all insight is appreciated- thanks!
>
> keepalived - more features, more "concentrated" to LVS, less stable
> (software is not nearly as well tested).
> heartbeat+ldirectord - works fine, very stable, easy to upgrade. it's
what
> I use.
>
> If I had to start over again I would consider using keepalived. This is
not
> because I am unhappy with the heartbeat package; it's simply because
> keepalived has some nice features I want - active/active, less messing
> around with programs such as "mon", etc.
>
> Hope that helps
>
> P
>
> _______________________________________________
> LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> or go to http://www.in-addr.de/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
>
|
