|
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Fernando Gomes wrote:
> I am using the following setup using NAT in the directors, and it is
> working well (no performance tests made yet). In the final setup I
> intend to have the loabalancers with dual NICs one for the 192.168.1.0
> network and other to the 192.168.0.0 network, for now the test was made
> with 192.168.0.X as an alias on eth0.
you'll have less oppotunities for trouble if you use
secondary IPs.
> The internal VIP (IVIP) was
> defined as the default gateway for the realservers, and also the
> iptables on the LoadBalancer was used:
>
>
>
> iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j MASQUERADE -s 192.168.0.0/24
don't use iptables rules until your LVS is working.
> I have one problem that I don't know if it can be solved, so I'm asking
> your opinion. I'm using also OpenVZ on all servers (including the
> Loadbalancers), but LVS is installed on the Hardware Node, not using
> OpenVZ at all. The problem I have is if I put a VE (virtual environment
> ~= virtual machine) on the standby loadbalancer and run on it a
> realserver.
I don't understand this sentence or know what the "it" is.
> When the director sends a client request to the realserver
> running on the standby loadbalancer (for example with Loadbalancer1
> active and realserver with IP 192.168.0.150 running on a VE on
> Loadbalancer2) the request fails. Using tcpdump I found that the
> connection request arrives to the realserver (loadbalancer2 node in that
> case), but it answers it directly to the router (using router MAC
> address), so there is no translation done by the loadbalancer1 as it
> should.
does your setup appear to be a one-network LVS-NAT (see
HOWTO)?
Joe
--
Joseph Mack NA3T EME(B,D), FM05lw North Carolina
jmack (at) wm7d (dot) net - azimuthal equidistant map
generator at http://www.wm7d.net/azproj.shtml
Homepage http://www.austintek.com/ It's GNU/Linux!
|
