|
Hi Joe,
Thanks for your replies. See feedback below...
> --- Joseph Mack <mack.joseph@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > --- pb wrote:
> > 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).
Our help desk helps people clear their local caches
when needed for the various widoze verzions. We
experience that DNS local cache issue for other things
too like those IIS webzerver entities. We also
experience BIND going away on a journey at times too,
but we're working to correct that (we think its
because the main BIND server is not running on Linux
;-)
>
> 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?
I'm assuming whichever director the packet sneaks
into, will route out and returns??? The director is
supposed to be transparent to the PC and Real Servers.
Or are you talking PERSISTANT connections, in which
case I would have think its keeping its connections
static for a little while - and that is between the
director and real server, no? (the preceeding was all
purely speculative in nature)
> > 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).
Well, I thought about putting 2 NICs in each Real
Server, and each
/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-ethX script lets
you put a different gateway, but the
/etc/sysconfig/network configuration file has the
DEFAULT GATEWAY... so I am assuming there is no way to
work around all this? Any thoughts on this???
>
> > 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?
Well, in this case, on the Linux directors, because
the Real Servers would be stripped-down FreeBSD (aka.
MOS).
Thanks,
Peter
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
|
