|
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 10:37:44PM -0600, Farid Hamjavar wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> We're trying to set up something here at work.
> In comparison/contrast between commercial
> load-balance hardware appliance and lvs we have
> three quick questions:
>
> 1. can, under lvs, a load-balancer load balance
> systems outside of its subnet?
Yes, using LVS-Tunnel
> 2. does lvs system need to act as a
> gateway for systems it load balances?
The Linux Director only needs to be the gatway
if you are using LVS-NAT. If you use LVS-Direct-Routing
or LVS-Tunnel then it does not need to be the gateway.
> 3. do you think lvs does a pretty good
> job (robustness+feature) in terms of
> session persistency?
The session presistency is robust, albeit somewhat simplistic.
It works by examining the source IP address of a connection
(optionally masked with a configurable netmask). If a connection
has previously been recived from that IP address,
less than timeout seconds ago, then the connection will
be forwarded to the same real server as the original connection.
It is possible to group (or not group) persistancy of
different virtual services using differnt VIPs or ports
using firewall marks.
--
Horms
|
