On Wed, 30 Nov 2011, Dean Scothern wrote: > On Wrote, 30 Nov 2011, Joseph Mack wrote: > >> On Tue, 29 Nov 2011, Dean Scothern wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Is there a way to either disable or bypass the localnode behaviour in ipvs? >> >> other than not using it? > What alternatives are there?
1 and 0 are the only two possibilities in a binary system. localnode is uses a feature of the kernel. It's in LVS because it was possible to do. It isn't a recommended feature for a production LVS. You can make a demo LVS out of two boxes but that's about it. > I have a two box solution in which both nodes are real servers. > The boxes are connected via their primary interfaces. > Exim(mail) is running on both. Pacemaker is used for HA and can migrate the > two exims in the usual way. > I want to load balance between the two nodes and as I'm not allowed to use > lvs-dr I've tried to use lvs-nat. > To this end I've added a secondary network and again used pacemaker to manage > the secondary VIPS (and ldirectord). your diagram didn't survive e-mail. Do you have a mixture of tabs and blanks? > I really don't want to add a separate load balancer cluster for the sake of > two machines. OK. I don't see any other way out of it. Joe -- Joseph Mack NA3T EME(B,D), FM05lw North Carolina jmack (at) wm7d (dot) net - azimuthal equidistant map generator at http://www.wm7d.net/azproj.shtml Homepage http://www.austintek.com/ It's GNU/Linux! _______________________________________________ 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
