|
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 02:36:21PM +0100, Graeme Fowler wrote:
> On Mon 13 Jun 2005 13:06:51 BST , Gavin Henry
> <ghenry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> <snip>
> >What is the lists view on it?
> >
> >Can it really be compared to LVS?
>
> The man page for more recent versions of iptables says:
>
> - CLUSTERIP This module allows you to configure a simple
> - cluster of nodes that share a certain IP and MAC address
> - without an explicit load balancer in front of them
>
> So without going into a huge amount of detail, my take on the
> "comparison" question would be a resounding "no".
>
> It might be useful for small projects where very simple 'clustering' is
> used (speech marks intentional), such as a simple 2 server setup, but
> IMO in no way could you directly compare it to LVS because it's so
> basic.
>
How about using clusterip to balance across two LVS balancers? That would
be the best of both worlds. Still centralized management, but instead of
failover you just have two boxes already working. I don't know if the hash
table can be changed on the fly.. but this might be more effective than
gratuitous arp like heartbeat does.
This sounds a lot like CARP, but done at the IP level.
|
