Looks like we'll be going with Cisco IOS SLB (Server Load Balancing) off of one of our 7xxx routers. Thanks againf or all the info, closing inquiry.
-Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Memblin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list." <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 8:40 AM Subject: Re: [lvs-users] Possibly beating a dead horse - IPVS-NAT - 1Director, 2 Realservers > I appreciate the information. That actually makes > alot of sense. I think I maybe be able to configure > it so that I can switch the cluster into production > and monitor it to see what happens. If it goes bad > I'll just switch the traffic back to the current production > box. > > Thanks, > -Chris > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Graeme Fowler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list." > <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 4:50 AM > Subject: Re: [lvs-users] Possibly beating a dead horse - IPVS-NAT - 1 > Director, 2 Realservers > > >> Hi >> >> On Sat, 2008-05-31 at 09:14 -0500, Memblin wrote: >>> If I remove the realserver from the ipvs config that is currently >>> getting >>> all the traffice (say num 1), the traffic does go to the other >>> realserver >>> (say num 2). Then when I put number 1 back into the ipvs configuation >>> the traffice stays with number 2. If I do nslookups from a windows >>> box it looks like Windows actually asks for like 8 things per single >>> request and those get spread out between both servers normally. >> >> We need to look a bit more deeply here at what's happening. >> >> Firstly, you're using NAT - this makes monitoring things a bit easier >> because the director has an idea of connection state due to it seeing >> all packets in both directions (in -DR it can have an idea of state but >> can get a little confused if packets go astray, which is why -DR tends >> to report "inactconn" rather than "actconn"). >> >> Secondly, you're configuring a connectionless service. DNS over UDP is >> "fire and forget" - the application is responsible for retries, rather >> than the OS protocol stack - and (this is the important bit) UDP is >> stateless. >> >> If you look at the connections from a single client on an unloaded >> system, you're likely to see what you do see - every packet goes to the >> same host, because LVS views them as a "session". >> >> On the balance of probabilities, a DNS server will receive many >> thousands of queries from many hundreds/thousands (or more) of hosts. >> Over time from a cold start to fully loaded, they will be shared out >> amongst the realservers according to the scheduler being used and the >> weight assigned (a word of advice - set the weights to something higher >> than 1. It makes future tuning *far* easier if you start with everything >> having a weight of 100, say). >> >> You could also look at "ipvsadm --set" and tune down the UDP timeout to >> something like one or two seconds. >> >> Unfortunately, using a small number of clients (where small is some >> number greater than 0) doesn't give real-world results. >> >> Graeme >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - [email protected] >> Send requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users >> >> >> -- >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG. >> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.4/1478 - Release Date: 6/2/2008 >> 7:12 AM >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - [email protected] > Send requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.4/1478 - Release Date: 6/2/2008 > 7:12 AM > > _______________________________________________ LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - [email protected] Send requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
