Re: [lvs-users] Ldirectord not working with heartbeat, works standalone

To: " users mailing list." <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [lvs-users] Ldirectord not working with heartbeat, works standalone
From: Malcolm Turnbull <malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:01:54 +0000
2009/2/10 Bruce Richardson <itsbruce@xxxxxxxxxxx>

> I possibly was not clear: I'm not talking about the on-disk
> configuration (which I would make damn sure is in sync via cfengine or
> puppet or similar); I'm talking about the LVS configuration as managed
> by ldirectord: that is, the actual state of the virtual services (which
> real servers are up or down etc.).  If ldirectord is turned off on
> inactive directors then the LVS configuration on those servers may not
> reflect the current situation and on the restart of ldirectord there
> will be a delay while this discrepancy is detected.  This is the main
> risk with managing ldirectord as a hearbeat resource and I see it as a
> significant enough danger to avoid any danger of it.
> I repeat my main question: what is the gain of doing this?


Can't argue with your logic, we put an auto-restart on ldirectord so that it
is always running on both nodes.
We also modify the shutdown/restart part of ldirectord so that it doesn't
clear out the LVS table on restart.

Still keep it in the ha-linux resources file though for completeness, I
guess most people just fail it over as it is the traditional way.
Also failover is so rare it doesn't bother most people (especially if they
don't require persistence.)
Keepalive probably has faster/better failover than heartbeat/ldirectord but
I've never tried it.


Malcolm Turnbull. Ltd.
Phone: +44 (0)870 443 8779
Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at: mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
or go to

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