|
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 11:48:44AM +0900, Horms wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 10:24:25PM +0300, Alex wrote:
> > Please consult me in one question about using Keepalived.
> > We want build a little cluster with LVS-NAT + Keepalived. But
> > for make this project cheaper we consider perhaps to merge two
> > LB in one.
> > If we have classic scheme then we have such path:
> >
> > Clients -> 2-LB for WebSrv -> 2-WebSrv -> 2-LB for AppSrv -> 2-AppSrv ->
> > 2-DBSrv -> SAN
> > --------------- ---------------
> > fisrt VIP-1 second VIP-2
> >
> > We plan use two pair of LB for support failover.
> > But we want cut two second LBs and delegate its functions on
> > first LBs:
> >
> > Clients -> 2-LB for WebSrv -> 2-WebSrv
> > <-
> > 2-LB for AppSrv -> 2-AppSrv -> 2-DBSrv -> SAN
> > ---------------
> > VIP-1 & VIP-2
> >
> > Question: may we realize this scheme. May LB (with Keepalived)
> > serve VIP not only for external clients but and internal servers.
> > Of course, VIP-1 and VIP-2 belong to different subnet. And make
> > one LB MASTER for VIP-1 and BACKUP for VIP-2 and another LB vise
> > versa MASTER for VIP-2 and BACKUP for VIP-1.
>
> As long as VIP-1 and VIP-2 are different _and_ 2-WebSrv and 2-AppSrv
> are different machines, this should work fine. If you use LVS-NAT,
> then you will need separate subnets. If you use LVS-DR then
> they can be on the same subnet, which might be substantially
> faster for you.
To clarify, LVS can do this. Keepalived should be able
to cope with this, though I am not familiar enough with
its configuration to give a difinative answer on that.
--
Horms
|
