LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: [lvs-users] Is it worth reading on?

To: "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list." <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [lvs-users] Is it worth reading on?
From: "Bill Omer" <bill.omer@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 09:16:42 -0400
On 6/28/07, Kyrios <kyrios@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm currently reading the LVS HOWTO and came to the point where I'm
> absolutely unsure if it will do what I need. I will try to explain what I'm
> searching for and perhaps you could tell me if it's woth reading on  ;)
>
> I'm searching a solution to cluster Gameservers. The solution should make
> Gameservers (which are unique through the used TCP/UDP Port) transparent to
> end users. Let's say I got 6 Realservers and I notice that Realserver #1 is
> under heavy load while Realserver #3 is nearly idle. Then I will stop the
> instance on #1 and launch it on #3. I would afterwards "tell" this to the
> "Director" and it will send the packtes to #3. Automated load balancing is
> out of the scope since the decission is clear. What I mean by this is that
> for instance if the client connects to Port 1234 there exists only one
> Gameserver on the Realservers which listens on 1234. This information could
> be provided to the director by a script or something.
>
> Step by Step I would like to add:
> - automated load balancing (check CPU load=>kill the gameserver
> process=>start on another realserver)
> - failover mechanisms
>
>
> Is LVS the right solution for me? Is it worth reading on?
>
> Thanks in advance
> Thorsten
>
> --
> ... black holes are where god divided by zero.



Well, I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to do here.

Basically, lets say you have your 6 real servers sitting behind your
director.  A connection to port 1234 comes in, do you want *all*
connections to go to the same server each time?  If so, then LVS might
not be what you want.

If you want to balance the traffic behind all 6 servers, then yes, you
want LVS.  If you want auto fail over between a pair of servers, then
you want to use Heartbeat only.

With game servers, you probably want all connections to go to the same
server correct?   LVS might not be the right solution for you unless
all the users are able to inter operate between all the real servers,
in which case LVS would be ideal.   Otherwise, to achieve just high
availability, use Heartbeat.


-Bill


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