LVS seems like an L4-NAT based loadbalancer. It does not provide proxy based load balancing as per my understanding.
Could you describe more on what you are looking to do and why the current scheme does not fit. Regards, Rudra ________________________________ From: Dominik Mostowiec <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 12:24 PM To: Rudra Rugge Cc: [email protected]; Piotr P Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] Active-active loadbalancer Is it possible for now to use another lb solution like lvs with connection state syncing in active-active mode in contrail? Regards Dominik 18 sie 2015 20:11 "Rudra Rugge" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> napisal(a): This has more implications on session distribution - least connection, roundrobin, source-ip etc will not work properly in this solution and hence we have not supported it. Without all the TCP and LB state sync as part of a cluster its still not a perfect solution. Rudra ________________________________ From: Dev <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Rudra Rugge <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 10:27 AM To: Piotr P; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] Active-active loadbalancer This is something we are exploring as part of our next effort. Thanks, Rudra ________________________________ From: Dev <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Piotr P <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 10:17 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [opencontrail-dev] Active-active loadbalancer Hi, Let me ask one more question regarding load balancer because this is interesting topic. >From what I've seen both instances have the same IP and MAC Adresses for both >interfaces (Righ, Left). Normally separate instances of haproxy could have >different addresses on the side of the backend Network. They will do checks >individually. and probably could scale >2 instances. Is it possible even theoretically that we could do that by only change IP and MAC on the Backend Network Side ? In my mind we need only ECMP only for VIP Address, In Backend each instance could have unique mac and IP address. Do you see this as possible scenario at all ? Kind Regards Piotr Pieprzycki This configuration can cause asymmetric routing. Response for request going from LB1 to a backend server could come back to LB2. LB2 does not have any state for this response and hence will drop the packet. Without syncing all the TCP state it can lead to unpredictable results. To sync all state clustering support is needed. _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opencontrail.org/mailman/listinfo/dev_lists.opencontrail.org
