Re: fail-over as opposed to round-robin

[malcolm <lists@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Joseph Mack NA3T wrote:
> On Wed, 17 May 2006 ahall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > Hi there,
> >
> > Can the LVS provide a fail-over type of redundancy, as well as a 
> > round-robin type?
> > That is, if I have two servers in my virtual "pool" can I direct all 
> > traffic to
> > just one server until it fails, and then all traffic will be directed 
> > to the
> > other server?
> the idea of LVS is to spread the load between hosts, so this won't 
> work. What you want is failover eg Linux-HA
> Joe
Or you could configure a fallback host in ldirectord or keepalived? if 
that's what you wanted.
Regards,
Malcolm.