|
pb wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> Anyone know if this is possible with LVS directors:
>
> DNS |------------- Director1/2 =====>| Real
> RR |------------- Director3/4 =====>| Servers
>
people don't like DNS RR. The problem I know about is
that you can't flush people's caches when you want them
flushed (and you shouldn't be able to flush them when you
want either).
I don't know if this is a problem: what happens if a client
gets a different address for the server in the middle of a connection?
> Note: Director1/2 have heartbeat.
> Director3/4 have heartbeat.
> The SAME Real Servers are routed to by
> both sets of directors.
> Yes I know this is overly-redundant.
>
> Using NAT routing, the problem I see is setting the
> Real Servers default gateway to the NAT Router IP
> Address(es) of the Directors. That is, each set of
> Directors have their own NAT Router IP address, so
> these seems to be a show stopper, no??? In other words
> all the Real Servers can only have ONE DEFAULT
> GATEWAY.
this is true, but why is it a problem (there's several issues
here and I don't want to spend my time talking about the ones you
understand).
> Also, with the latest kernels, does Tunneling and
> Direct Routing work yet, without having to apply some
> patch??? Specificially Red Hat kernels?
on the director or the realservers?
Joe
--
Joseph Mack PhD, Senior Systems Engineer, SAIC contractor
to the National Environmental Supercomputer Center,
ph# 919-541-0007, RTP, NC, USA. mailto:mack.joseph@xxxxxxx
|
