LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

RE: single load-balancer, multiple clusters?

To: "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list." <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: single load-balancer, multiple clusters?
From: Alan Murrell <silkbc@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 16:26:05 -0400 (EDT)
Hello,

Thanks for all your help!

My setup will be using one "NIC"; the real servers do
have two NICs, but I have them bonded, and each going
through a different switch, in case of failure on one
NIC or switch.  However, from what I can read in the
documentation, LVS should be able to handle two
networks going through "one" NIC, so I'm okay there
:-)

> Same for public network VIPs they must all be on
> same network, 192.168.2.0

Hrm, our original design goal had been to seperate
each of the groups into their own subnet, so that
problems with one group would likely not spill over to
the other.  However, if this would not be possible
with one Director and several groups, then I think we
can live with the VIP's having to be one subnet :-)

One other question:

Currently, all the Real Servers are plugged into the
same two switches (each has two NICs; one NIC plugged
into one switch, and the other NIC plugged into the
other switch).

If I plug the Director into one of the same switches,
will I still be able to put the Real Servers on a
private network, as long as the Director can talk to
them?  So for example, if the Real Servers were on the
'192.168.1.0/24' network, and I was using
'10.10.10.1', '10.10.10.2', and '10.10.10.3' as the
VIP's (public), the Director could likely have the
following IP setup:

eth0 - 192.168.1.1
eth0:0 - 10.10.10.1 (linuxweb)
eth0:1 - 10.10.10.2 (ntdbweb)
eth0:2 - 10.10.10.3 (ntweb)

Actually, I can prolly give that a try.  But your
clarification would be appreciated!

Alan


______________________________________________________________________ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>