We are searching for scalable and distributed LB solution which can achieve much more traffic than one haproxy process can. Yes, it possible to put many active-standby LBs behind DNS but i don't know if it is a good sution.
Regards Dominik 18 sie 2015 21:34 "Rudra Rugge" <[email protected]> napisał(a): > 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]> napisał(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]> on behalf of Rudra >> Rugge <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 18, 2015 10:27 AM >> *To:* Piotr P; [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]> on behalf of Piotr P < >> [email protected]> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 18, 2015 10:17 AM >> *To:* [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] >> 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
