Hi, I am wondering if it is possible to have two LVS directors, each which update the other with their connections table, so that either can take over for the other, should it become necessary.
For example, I might have two directors, and two "high availability" addresses (VRRP/keepalived/something else). Each director is preferred for one address, and the backup for the other. If one fails, then I want not only the IP address to fail over, but for the LVS connection table to fail over, so that existing connections continue to run. So, can LVS support this "multi-master" sync? What I have seen so far seems to indicate that you can only have a "master" and a "slave". Before anyone responds back that I am doing the wrong thing, I'll respond to the two reasons I am expecting to hear: * "Why not just have master/standby?" - I try to avoid having standby systems wherever possible, as in my experience the time you find out that there was a problem on the standby, is when you need it the most. Better to have a load shared system, with failover, so that you know about faults immediately. * "If you have enough load for two machines, then when one fails over, you won't have enough capacity!" - I actually want to try and scale this up to a N+1 system, but I need to figure out if I can do this first. * "You just want the moon on a stick!" - Well, yes. I'd rather figure out what can be done, and *then* compromise. Thanks, -- Jarrod _______________________________________________ Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at: http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/ LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - [email protected] Send requests to [email protected] or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
