|
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 09:11 -0400, PMilanese@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> You need to be extremely careful when considering something like this.
> There are many possible theories that are not at all practical.
>
> Hot spare serves as exactly that. This is what LVS (and HA in general)
> lives for. It is a spare. Meaning that it can fall in to "Replace" a
> production server with little/no manpower. Operative word being "Replace".
> When considering going live with both LVS servers, you leave vulnerability
> if one ever goes down. This vulnerability is lack of capacity if the
> servers aren't serious overkill to begin with (which rectifies the need to
> balance them anyways, don't it?).
>
> One goes down, the other has to take the load of 2 servers.
>
Agreed on that. My thought was more that this would be faster than
gratuitous arp, and only lose half the connections when there is a
failure. Making sure that each one is capable of handling the full load
is definitely a requirement before implementing something like this.
|
