|
I agree with Malcolm.
Keep it simple by design. Are you currently having load problems?
I have a couple of small boxes running LVS (dual 1g I think), and don't
work all that hard. I only do about 200 million hits/month, but it's well
sufficient.
I'll be replacing my LVS setup with F5 hardware, but it has not gone down
or failed over since put up 3 years ago. In fact, I had to do service
failovers just for my own sanity checks.
If bandwidth is a problem, maybe multihoming the connections is an answer.
-----Original Message-----
From: lvs-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:lvs-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 10:17 AM
To: LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list.
Subject: Re: AW: lvs active/active
That doesn't sound like it would stretch a single LVS active-failover.
Active/Active is only required if your hardware can't match the load and
even then you'd be better off having two pairs of active-passive load
balancers servering two different groups of VIPs.
It also saves on complexity.
No one can do active active on the same VIP (at least not that I'm aware
of...)
Just my personal point of view of course... I still here people trying
to convince me that old foundry server irons are faster than LVS because
they are based on hardware (Ha! 10 year old hardware more like....).
Regards,
Malcolm Turnbull.
René Enskat [Teamware GmbH] wrote:
>Coz we have 10 nodeserver behind them and near 500 sites thats the
>reason why :)
>You can tell me how to make it working?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>Von: lvs-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>[mailto:lvs-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag
>>von PMilanese@xxxxxxxx
>>Gesendet: Montag, 6. Juni 2005 15:18
>>An: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Betreff: RE: lvs active/active
>>
>>There are likely ways to do it, but it is probably not practical.
>>
>>The logic behind this is that when running active/active, and
>>one goes down, the traffic will flood the lone server.
>>
>>Is there any particular reason that you want to do this?
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: lvs-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>[mailto:lvs-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
>>Of René Enskat [Teamware GmbH]
>>Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 8:26 AM
>>To: LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list.
>>Subject: lvs active/active
>>
>>
>>Isit possible to run the LVS in active/active mode?
>>If yes what are the changes i have todo in my lvs.cf?
>>
>>Regards Rene
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
|
