LVS (to my knowledge) requires that the Directors all be on the same subnet, so it wouldn't help with having clients use the 'nearest' master server. If the prolem was just load balancing on the servers then yes, it would work.
After thinking about it a bit more, it would probably be much easier to implement a module that takes as input a list of servers and outputs a variable with the best available, which would then be used in the copy statements. -Jason Martin > -----Original Message----- > From: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Mates > Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 5:50 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: DNS & multiple names and copy statements > > > * Martin, Jason H <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I realize one can do this now in a basic form by determining the > > server value based on the current subnet, but this limits > one to only > > a 2-way failover. Something more flexible would be handy. > > Why not place a pool of cfengine servers behind a load > balancer, such as LVS? You would need key trust duplication > for ppkeys to work, and replication of your staging areas > between the pool members, but it would save reimplementing > load balancing in cfengine: > http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/ _______________________________________________ Help-cfengine mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-cfengine _______________________________________________ Help-cfengine mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-cfengine
