On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 10:56:24AM -0500, Brooks, Jody wrote: > Thanks for the links... working my way through them now ... > > For info: I am using the redirect bits like in "method #2". > > In fact, that's all I'm doing on the real servers as I have not assigned > the VIP to the lo interface on the real servers as seems to be discussed > in LVS-DR.html (haven't read all that yet but that appears to be implied > as I've read that in other places as well). This VIP on lo doesn't > appear to be critical as my service works fine when the client is on a > non-real-server/non-director host. Am I missing something here? Seems > like the VIP on lo would be used if you weren't doing the iptables > redirect (i.e., method 2)... right? wrong? That's right; the redirect is a completely different solution to the "ARP Problem" that LVS-DR.html talks about. You need one or the other, but not both. What I was saying is that if you did #1 in the doc (or configured the IP on lo as per LVS-DR.html), the connection would always work - it just wouldn't be load balanced. That would be a way to get rid of part of your failure cases, if elimination of the failure was more important than being optimally load balanced. > I will try to incorporate some of the pieces from the LVS-DR.html ideas > and see if that gets me any further. > For the record, our need of this is that one of our services is also a > consumer of other of our services, all of which should be load-balanced > across the same cluster as they're related. If you can't get it working with LVS, you could always try something like RRDNS to do something similar. Unfortunately, I have not tried this configuration at all - so my insight will naturally be rather limited. :( -- Lon Hohberger - Software Engineer - Red Hat, Inc. -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
