LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: SV: local node and remote nodes - Problem!

To: "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list." <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: SV: local node and remote nodes - Problem!
From: Joseph Mack NA3T <jmack@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 07:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Jacob Coby wrote:

Which makes me wonder - would there be any advantage to creating an indirect route (IDR) mode where the realserver uses the director as its router?

It's available if you want it (the forward_shared patches).

http://www.austintek.com/LVS/LVS-HOWTO/HOWTO/LVS-HOWTO.LVS-DR.html#LVS-DR_director_default_gw

you throw away much of the security advantages of LVS-DR

http://www.austintek.com/LVS/LVS-HOWTO/HOWTO/LVS-HOWTO.LVS-DR.html#Pearthree

to use it.

Of course, that removes the bandwith advantage that DR mode has and pretty much makes it NAT without the address translation.

I haven't seen any numbers, but since LVS was rewritten for 2.4 kernels, Julian assures us that LVS-NAT is just as fast as LVS-DR.

Joe

--
Joseph Mack NA3T EME(B,D), FM05lw North Carolina
jmack (at) wm7d (dot) net - azimuthal equidistant map
generator at http://www.wm7d.net/azproj.shtml Homepage http://www.austintek.com/ It's GNU/Linux!

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