Hi Bill, big thanks for your fast answer.
I think I already know that LVS isn't the right "tool" for my demands after reading you answer. To be sure another try describing what should happen: A connection comes in to a "director". The connection is on Port 1234. The director searches a file/DB/CMDB. Based on the information found there he decides to redirect the server to RL#2. Another day RL#2 is down for maintenance. The CMDB/file/DB reflects this and "the" gameserver is running on RL#3. The Director then redirects the connection to #3. Thorsten On 6/28/07, Bill Omer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 6/28/07, Kyrios <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I'm currently reading the LVS HOWTO and came to the point where I'm > > absolutely unsure if it will do what I need. I will try to explain what > I'm > > searching for and perhaps you could tell me if it's woth reading on ;) > > > > I'm searching a solution to cluster Gameservers. The solution should > make > > Gameservers (which are unique through the used TCP/UDP Port) transparent > to > > end users. Let's say I got 6 Realservers and I notice that Realserver #1 > is > > under heavy load while Realserver #3 is nearly idle. Then I will stop > the > > instance on #1 and launch it on #3. I would afterwards "tell" this to > the > > "Director" and it will send the packtes to #3. Automated load balancing > is > > out of the scope since the decission is clear. What I mean by this is > that > > for instance if the client connects to Port 1234 there exists only one > > Gameserver on the Realservers which listens on 1234. This information > could > > be provided to the director by a script or something. > > > > Step by Step I would like to add: > > - automated load balancing (check CPU load=>kill the gameserver > > process=>start on another realserver) > > - failover mechanisms > > > > > > Is LVS the right solution for me? Is it worth reading on? > > > > Thanks in advance > > Thorsten > > > > -- > > ... black holes are where god divided by zero. > > > > Well, I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to do here. > > Basically, lets say you have your 6 real servers sitting behind your > director. A connection to port 1234 comes in, do you want *all* > connections to go to the same server each time? If so, then LVS might > not be what you want. > > If you want to balance the traffic behind all 6 servers, then yes, you > want LVS. If you want auto fail over between a pair of servers, then > you want to use Heartbeat only. > > With game servers, you probably want all connections to go to the same > server correct? LVS might not be the right solution for you unless > all the users are able to inter operate between all the real servers, > in which case LVS would be ideal. Otherwise, to achieve just high > availability, use Heartbeat. > > > -Bill > > _______________________________________________ > LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - [email protected] > Send requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users > -- ... black holes are where god divided by zero. _______________________________________________ LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - [email protected] Send requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
