Re: [lvs-users] ultramonkey: High Capacity High Availability and Load Ba

To: " users mailing list." <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [lvs-users] ultramonkey: High Capacity High Availability and Load Balancing
Cc: ultramonkey-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: José Miguel Parrella Romero <joseparrella@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 20:32:18 -0400
j j escribió:
> Is it possible to get going as of now, with 1 linux director, 2 real
> servers for High Capacity High Availability and Load Balancing, 2nd
> imaginary linux director is already dead.

Yes, but then it wouldn't be highly available. Your single point of
failure is in your one and only director, and if it fails, you end up
getting almost nothing. If you still want to go out like this (which
isn't that bad, I think, at least if your other director is expected to
arrive soon) I can propose you:

a) Do you have access to any Linux machine without CPU intensive
applications running? You can easily setup the backup director there,
and it wouldn't be used until it's really needed.

b) One of your two real servers can be your backup director. This is
harder to setup, and all machines should be in the same subnet, but hey,
it's a dirty workaround. A version of this ugly solution is to have
'backup load balancing' with DNS round robin.


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