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: Horms <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 10:29:26 +0900
On Sun, Apr 06, 2003 at 04:26:05PM -0400, Alan Murrell wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Thanks for all your help!

Hi Alan,

sorry I missed the begining of this tread.

> 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
> :-)

Yes, that should not be a problem.

> > 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 :-)

As I mentioned above I missed the begining of this tread.
And so I can't comment specifically on your proposed design.
However, there is no inherent reason that LVS can't handle
VIPs on different subnets.

> 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!

Yes, that should be fine. Obviously you will need to set up
the routing correctly. But LVS should be able to handle this.
That is not to say that you may not have some fun and games
getting it all working.

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