|
re: active-active
I'll hopefully be able to mention something about it in the next week or
so. I've got a couple test stations setup for this active-active
stuff. I'm planning to set the link speeds on the LVSs to 10mbit, then
try to shove >10mbit through them with a 100mbit link on the same switch.
---
Michael Spiegle
mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
David Fix wrote:
>> Ok... it seems like there's a huge flaw in my understanding of how
>> traffic gets back to where it came from. For some reason, I had always
>> thought that the routing table was meant for new outgoing connections
>> which is stupid because I've run into multiple problems where I
>> couldn't
>> contact a remote host because the remote host's routing table was
>> wrong.
>>
>> So yeah... LVS-DR makes PERFECT sense now.
>>
>
> Good to hear. :)
>
>
>> Now, if only someone could explain how you can use active-active to
>> increase throughput beyond a single LVS.... my mind can finally rest :)
>>
>
> Unfortunately, that I can't help you with, I'm an LVS-newb myself, but I had
> a good grasp of the other bits. :D
>
> Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
|
