LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Multiple virtual addresses but only 2 real servers

To: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Multiple virtual addresses but only 2 real servers
From: "Ralph Jones" <ralph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:39:00 -0000 (GMT)
Hi,

(Advance apologies for cross posting with UltraMonkey user list.  Having
read my message back I think this mailing list may be more appropriate).

Could anybody advise me on the best way to approach configuring ldirectord
for our load balancing configuration.

We have 2 UltraMonkey load balancers with 5 virtual addresses
(10.10.11.180 - 10.10.11.185).

We have 2 real servers with 5 IP addresses each (10.10.11.150 -
10.10.11.155 and 10.10.11.130 - 10.10.11.135).  The real servers have 5
addresses each to handle 5 slightly different versions of the same web
application (tailored for localities).  Unfortunately this configuration
cannot be changed...

I have the following ldirectord.cf to handle this:

>checktimeout=10
>checkinterval=10
>autoreload=no
>logfile="local0"
>quiescent=yes
>
># Address 1
>virtual=10.10.11.180:80
>        real=10.10.11.150:80 masq
>        real=10.10.11.130:80 masq
>        scheduler=wlc
>        service=http
>        protocol=tcp
>        checktype=negotiate
>        request="test.htm"
>        receive="OK"
>
># Address 2
>virtual=10.10.11.181:80
>        real=10.10.11.151:80 masq
>        real=10.10.11.131:80 masq
>        scheduler=wlc
>        service=http
>        protocol=tcp
>        checktype=negotiate
>        request="test.htm"
>        receive="OK"
>
># Address 3
>virtual=10.10.11.182:80
>        real=10.10.11.152:80 masq
>        real=10.10.11.132:80 masq
>        scheduler=wlc
>        service=http
>        protocol=tcp
>        checktype=negotiate
>        request="test.htm"
>        receive="OK"
> ...

My question is, can I configure ldirectord to group the virtual addresses
and thereby only poll the 2 real servers?  I'm assuming that with the
above configuration each real server address will be polled for activity
which is quite a bit of wasted overhead.

The above configuration works perfectly, but I just think there must be a
neater way to do it!

Thanks for any help,

Ralph.




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