|
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 10:32:46AM +0700, Ariyo Nugroho wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-10-30 at 10:09, Horms wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 06:48:04PM -0800, Ariyo Nugroho wrote:
> > >
> > > --- Horms <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 12:38:07AM -0800, Ariyo
> > > > Nugroho wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I have questions about LVS-DR:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Is it OK that the director also acts as the
> > > > > gateway? From my previous setup with LVS-NAT, I'm
> > > > left
> > > > > with the director acted as the gateway for the
> > > > > realservers. And for some reasons, I think I'll
> > > > keep
> > > > > using it as the gateway.
> > > >
> > > > Generally no.
> > >
> > > So, do you think I must separate the gateway from the
> > > director? OK then.
> >
> > It can be done with some hacks. Hunt through linuxvirtualserver.org
> > for more information.
> >
> > But really, why don't you just use LVS-NAT?
>
> That's because I didn't find any example of using LVS-NAT for ftp
> service (yet). OK, OK. Don't be mad at me. I'll dig deeper into the
> docs. :)
I'm not mad :) I just suspect that as you are already happily
using LVS-NAT for other services this is the best choice for
your FTP service.
All you need to do is set up a virtual service on the ftp port
and insert the ip_vs_ftp module into the kernel. It should work
from there. I think there is quite a lot of information on how
to use FTP with LVS in the HOWTO.
> But, other reason for me is: I want to extend my experience in LVS, so
> that I can understand what you're guys talking in this mailing list! I
> don't want to be a newbie forever, you know :)
That is an excellent plan :)
--
Horms
|
