Re: Higher Grained Definition of IPAddressAssignments?

["Martin Waite" <Martin.Waite@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dustin,

 

A thousand sincere apologies.

 

 Unfortunately, tracing through the ip script with this attribute enabled, I can see that this has absolutely no effect.

 

Sorry to get your hopes up.

 

regards,

Martin

 

From: linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dustin Henry Offutt
Sent: 14 June 2010 15:23
To: linux clustering
Subject: Re: Higher Grained Definition of IPAddressAssignments?

 

Martin,

A thousand most sincere gratitudes.

This is exactly what we need (I'm presuming this attribute looks for an interface labeled "eth0" (from your example) and applies that 192 address to it....?). Testing immediately!!!

If you have a moment, from whence did you find this attribute?

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Martin Waite <Martin.Waite@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi,

 

/usr/share/cluster/ip.sh appears to perform the link-monitoring in the "status" command, which is called periodically.  I don't know that either rgmanager or cman or other cluster software are directly involved in that.

 

The "ip" configuration already supports an "interface" attribute:

 

      <ip address="192.168.2.120" interface="eth0" monitor_link="1"/>

 

 

regards,

Martin

 

From: linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dustin Henry Offutt
Sent: 14 June 2010 13:15
To: linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx >> linux clustering
Subject: Re: Higher Grained Definition of IP AddressAssignments?

 

Appreciate the info, but indeed what we need is HA.

I need to perhaps request if a cluster developer would be willing to add a new configuration item to the IP xtag within the cluster.conf configuration that would allow one to specify IP an IP label to apply the IP resource to.

This could be done via a cluster resource script - but then we'd lose the ability to have the cluster software monitor the link and relocate the service should the link be lost.

Kit Gerrits wrote:

Hello,

 

What you want sounds more like Load Balancing than HA Clustering.

 

I would suggest building a lvs load balancing cluster with 10.1.1.x as front-end IP and 10.1.2 as backend IP.

Make the LVS the default gateway for your 'cluster servers' (realservers), then configure 1-.1.1.50 on your LVS cluster as Virtual IP with the 10.1.2.x realservers as backend using NAT routing.

 

Documentation isa vailable at:

http://www.austintek.com/LVS/LVS-HOWTO/

or, more specifically:

http://www.austintek.com/LVS/LVS-HOWTO/HOWTO/LVS-HOWTO.LVS-NAT.html

 

LVS should be included in Red Hat Advanced Platform.

 

Yes, running a LoadBalancing cluster means 2 more servers and 2 more subscriptions, but it will allow for highly-available Load Balancing.

(implicitly allowing you to take realservers offline for maintenance)

 

 

Regards,

 

Kit Gerrits

 

--
Linux-cluster mailing list
Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster

 

--
Linux-cluster mailing list
Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster