|
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 09:55:23AM -0400, Clint Byrum wrote:
> 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.
Been there, done that. Works, but is it neccessary?
http://www.ultramonkey.org/papers/active_active/
--
Horms
|
