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 09:51:57 -0400
On 6/28/07, Kyrios <kyrios@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> big thanks for your fast answer.
>
> I think I already know that LVS isn't the right "tool" for my demands after
> reading you answer.
>
> To be sure another try describing what should happen:
>
> A connection comes in to a "director". The connection is on Port 1234. The
> director searches a file/DB/CMDB. Based on the information found there he
> decides to redirect the server to RL#2. Another day RL#2 is down for
> maintenance. The CMDB/file/DB reflects this and "the" gameserver is running
> on RL#3. The Director then redirects the connection to #3.
>


If you want the connections to be static, I still think Heartbeat
would be a better solution for you.   With heartbeat, you can have all
of your real servers monitoring each other.  Heartbeat can assign a
VIP which will be your service address for the game server.  If the
primary server fails, heartbeat would detect that and would move the
vip to the next server on the list thats available.

I think that would be a better solution for you.

If you want some connections to go to RH#1 and some to go to RH#2 to
share the load, then you need LVS.  If you just want high availability
and no load balancing, heartbeat is the route you need to take.

-Bill


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