|
On Feb 4, 2004, at 8:05 PM, Horms wrote:
On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 02:49:23PM -0800, Dave Lowenstein wrote:
easy question: do my linux real servers need to have the hidden patch?
Yes, because you are putting the vip in lo:180 on
the real servers. If you do not hide this then they
will answer ARP requests for the VIP and traffic
may end up going directly to one real server rather than the
Linux Directors.
If you do not want to have to worry about this I would
suggest using LVS-NAT instead of LVS-DR.
I'm looking at implementing an LVS cluster with a couple of Red Hat
Advanced Server (v2.1) boxes as the real-servers. I would prefer to
stay with the "supported" Red Hat-blessed configuration (ie. LVS-NAT),
but that's proving to be difficult for a number of reasons (the primary
one is that Oracle Collab Suite is a fscking PITA...). The main hangup
I have to using LVS-DR is that, in order to do so, I need to apply the
so-called "hidden" patch. (why is it named that? is the patch itself
hidden, or is the name referring to "hiding" arp replies?) While I'm
not averse to patching kernels, I don't want to stray too far from a
supported configuration of RHAS.
I believe that, aside from that little hidden patch issue, LVS on RHAS
does support LVS-DR. What I'm having difficulty with is finding the
hidden patch for my 2.4.9 kernel; can anyone help?
I know how y'all feel about RHAS and LVS, but if I'm going to use LVS,
I need to make the two play together.
Thanks,
B
--
Brian Lalor
Web Portal Analyst
Delta Faucet Co.
blalor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(v) 317-573-3461
|
