LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: Please confirm or debunk my suspicions (LVS DR)

To: "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list." <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Please confirm or debunk my suspicions (LVS DR)
From: Jacob Coby <jcoby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 17:40:51 -0400
Danner, Russ wrote:
Jacob,

You have the right idea.  The question is can the same load balancer pair
serve n clusters own unique ID address


 LVS Backup
  |
  |        ______ Site a apache inst 1 2 & 3 (ip address: x)
 LVS------|
          |______ Site b apache inst 1 2 & 3 (ip address: y)
          |
          |______ Site c apache inst 1 2 & 3 (ip address: z)

is this possible?

of course, that's how lvs works! for each ip:port to load balance, you can pick any number of realservers to balance across.

Would it be better to put a load balancing lvs pair infront of each cluster
(x,y, and z) would it perform poorly?

I understand LVS works well up to about 100 servers

from what i understand, it really depends on your needs. if you have heavy fwmark usage or are running other processes on the director, then, yes, it would make sense to have multiple directors. i think lvs is more limited by bandwidth than anything else.

i've not heard of the 100 server rule though.  can anyone back this up?

--
-Jacob

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