|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lvs-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:lvs-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Ryan
> Leathers
> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 2:00 PM
> To: dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Ultramonkey, Piranha, Keepalived, oh my!
>
>
> If you are only doing lvs-nat and you happen to run Red Hat Linux, then
> Piranha is a fine choice. The interface is reasonably intuitive so if
> you don't care to gain a thorough understanding of how lvs works, you
> can likely get away with using piranha to configure it for you. On the
> other hand, if you need to do lvs-dr or use fw marks or anything exotic,
> then piranha is not for you.
I'm considering lvs-dr using piranha. Can you elaborate on why piranha might
not be for someone wanting to use this? To me it looks fairly simple to set
up, but I haven't done it yet. There is a select button for lvs-dr in
piranha, configure the appropriate ips of your primary and backup directorrs
and VIP, and real servers, then configure the following on your real servers
rc.local for the shared Virtual IP:
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/all/hidden
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/lo/hidden
ifconfig lo:0 172.26.20.110 netmask 255.255.255.255 broadcast 172.26.20.110
up
thanks
> On an entirely different note - ultra monkey is a very nice packaging of
> all the things, EXCEPT a gui management interface, that one would need
> for load balancing. I use it on 74 servers (37 pairs) to provide
> fail-over for an application which has no inherent fault tolerance. I
> used to use it for a web farm as well, but I switched to a Red Hat
> conforming LVS along with piranha in order to make it easier for web
> admin types to adjust web farm host details.
>
> On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 11:35 -0700, Dan Trainor wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Graham David Purcocks M.A.(Oxon.) wrote:
> > > Ultramonkey is a pre-packaged complete implementation of LVS,
> heartbeat
> > > and ldirectord. Which gives you (in order) load balancing, director
> > > failover and real server monitoring.
> > >
> > > Piranha is RedHats offerering of the same.
> > >
> > > Keepalived is, I think, equivalent to ldirectord but I'm not sure as I
> > > don't use it.
> > >
> > > Hope this helps.
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 18:21, Dan Trainor wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello, all -
> > >
> > > Once again I call upon the help of you fine people in helping
> me better
> > > understand exactly what I'm looking at here. Before we get
> started, I'd
> > > first like to thank you all who have helped me in the past. You're an
> > > incredible help.
> > >
> > > I've been reading an excellent article by Mr. Zhang on linux-mag.com,
> > > http://www.linux-mag.com/2003-11/clusters_01.html. If you
> have not yet
> > > read it, I highly suggest that you do. It is very informative.
> > >
> > > While reading this article, UltraMonkey, Piranha, and Keepalived were
> > > briefly mentioned. Although there was a little intro given about all
> > > three, their purpose seemed a bit fuzzy to me.
> > >
> > > It seems to me that all three of these services provide the
> same type of
> > > service - they all determine which node is up/working/doing stuff, and
> > > deals with this circumstance as it sees appropriate. What I
> don't quite
> > > understand is the subtle differences between the three, or if I'm just
> > > completely wrong here. All three describe themselves as dealing with
> > > high availability and load balancing, but I can't really find a
> > > comparrison between the three.
> > >
> > > If anyone might be able to point me in the right direction,
> or just give
> > > me some links as to where I can read about the differences between the
> > > three, I would greatly appreciate it.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > -dant
> >
> > Thanks for the reply, Graham -
> >
> > It doesn't look like there's been much development on Piranha in quite
> > some time here. Would it be safe to conclude that UltraMonkey may be my
> > best bet here, with consideration given to the fact that I'm quite new
> > at this as of yet?
> >
> > Thanks
> > - -dant
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> >
> > iD8DBQFDc5LzhTPx3xy3bu0RAs7FAKCUxPDH4uKq8H93BhIuSWMTLL2mVACeJKTP
> > pwsVIgw+/rM31hw+VHyh3y8=
> > =8I3M
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > _______________________________________________
> > LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > or go to http://www.in-addr.de/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
> _______________________________________________
> LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> or go to http://www.in-addr.de/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
|
