LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

LVS, fwmarks and a port translation problem

To: "'lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: LVS, fwmarks and a port translation problem
From: Philip Hayward <Philip.Hayward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 15:47:35 +0100
Hi,

I have a design problem and was wondering if anyone had any bright ideas
about solving it. Using Ultramonkey I have 2 LVS-NAT servers in failover. I
want them to hold up to 20 virtual IPs for numerous HTTP/HTTPS apps that we
run (must be on 80/443). Behind the LVS are 6 apache/tomcat servers each
hosting up to 10 of the apps. Because of the use of SSL we port translate so
that each real server only has 1 real IP (using real IPs for historical
reasons). I need a load balanced persistent config... And I don't want to
have to make any changes (except default routes) to the web servers...

Yes, this is a painfully complicated configuration but it kind of works with
our hardware LB which needs replacing, hopefully with LVS.

Here is my first 1/10th scale attempt on our staging stack:

IP Virtual Server version 1.0.9 (size=65536)
Prot LocalAddress:Port Scheduler Flags
  -> RemoteAddress:Port           Forward Weight ActiveConn InActConn
TCP  10.1.1.81:80 wlc
  -> 10.1.1.39:51580              Masq    1      0          0
  -> 10.1.1.14:51580              Masq    1      0          0
TCP  10.1.1.46:80 wlc
  -> 10.1.1.39:50580              Masq    1      0          0
  -> 10.1.1.14:50580              Masq    1      0          0
TCP  10.1.1.46:443 wlc persistent 300 mask 255.255.255.0
  -> 10.1.1.39:50543              Masq    1      0          0
  -> 10.1.1.14:50543              Masq    1      0          0
TCP  10.1.1.81:443 wlc persistent 300 mask 255.255.255.0
  -> 10.1.1.39:51543              Masq    1      0          0
  -> 10.1.1.14:51543              Masq    1      0          0

This worked until I realised I need persistence between HTTP and HTTPS. Now
FWMARKS is a great idea, but I can't see how I can make it work in this
situation. I'd appreciate any advice.

Thanks,

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