LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: antefacto patch successful against ipvs1.0.7 and 2.4.19 kernel

To: LVS List <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: antefacto patch successful against ipvs1.0.7 and 2.4.19 kernel
From: Vinnie <listacct1@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 20:12:24 -0400
Marc-Christian Petersen wrote:
On Tuesday 15 April 2003 01:12, Vinnie wrote:

Hi Vinnie,


With Ben North's very helpful information, I managed to hand-fit the
"antefacto" patches into v1.0.7 of the IPVS source and 2.4.19 kernel
source.  After completing the patch work, I ran a diff against the whole
kernel tree, to come up with a "single kernel patch" of IPVS 1.0.7 for
kernel 2.4.19, *WITH* the antefacto patches in place also.

thanks a lot for your work! Great to see this :-)

Just curious: where did you find the antefacto patch?

ciao, Marc



Hi Marc,

It was listed on the linuxvirtualserver.org webpage, in the LVS-HOWTO,
section 21 or so.

I copied it from the web browser over to the text editor, ran some
formatting through it to turn as many spaces as possible into tabs (plus
a few spaces on most lines to keep the formatting looking nice and as
depicted on the web page), and started working on figuring out where the
different parts of it would fit into the newer IPVS and kernel source
(the kernel part was easy).

Thanks really goes to Ben North, he replied rather quickly to my email
query - he looked over the 1.0.7 source, pointed out what part(s) of the
original antefacto patch weren't really needed anymore, and explained a
lot of other stuff about the rest of it too.  He mentioned also that
he's in a different line of work now and hasn't really worked with the
IPVS code in a while.  And of course thanks also to everybody else that
worked on creating that mod originally.  All I really did was try to
figure out where to fit somebody else's work into newer sources. ;)

But this really is a great functionality.  I'm really surprised how well
it is working with our setup here, especially considering that this
LVS-NAT director/firewall box is also running "proxy-arp".  (we have
other servers/hosts using routable IP's behind the firewall that aren't
(and WON'T be) "LVS'd" - and I don't want to have to SNAT/DNAT anything
I don't have to).

If only this netfilter connection state "awareness" of IPVS connections
were part of the main IPVS source... ;)

Now setting up heartbeat or keepalived, to have a PAIR of these
director/firewall boxes going (active-hot standby), THAT is the next
challenge... the standby has to be able to grab the IP's *AND* the
customized routing table entries from the master.

vinnie



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