Re: LVS, load balancing, and stickness was ==> Re: [Serusers] more usrloc synchronization
13 Apr
2005
13 Apr
'05
8:02 p.m.
As well as I am.
"Greger V. Teigre" <greger(a)teigre.com> wrote:> The only bright point I
can offer here is that I'm 100% certain that
the LVS source code has __not__ been modified.
Which really makes me annoyed, because I cannot right now see any other obvious path (i.e.
simpler).
g-)
Sorry,
Paul
On Apr 11, 2005 4:46 AM, Greger V. Teigre <greger(a)teigre.com> wrote:
After my last email, I looked at ktcpvs and realized I ignored a
couple of things: ktcpvs only supports tcp (http is obviously
tcp-based, but I thought it supported udp for other protocols). I
don't know how much work implementing udp would be.
Here is a discussion of SIP and LVS that I found useful (though
not encouraging).
http://www.austintek.com/LVS/LVS-HOWTO/HOWTO/LVS-HOWTO.services_that_dont_w…
Paul: I'm starting to get really curious on the standard LVS
components used for your stickiness! I'm not aware (also after
searching now) of an LVS balancing mechanism that allows correct
stickness on SIP udp...!
And I found other too who are looking for it:
http://archive.linuxvirtualserver.org/html/lvs-users/2005-02/msg00251.html
My understanding is that ipvs must be extended (according to the
developer) with a call-id based scheduler and that this work has
several people willing to fund development, but that this has not(?)
started yet. The problem is that ipvs is based on ip header analysis
and extending the hashing algorithms to also include payload-based
analysis is not straight-forward.
g-)
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
14 Apr
14 Apr
1:06 a.m.
New subject: LVS, load balancing, and stickness was ==> Re: [Serusers] more usrloc synchronization
You are probably right. HSRP could actually be used for load
balancing, as could VRRP (which is what I believe you mean by
active/active) by defining multiple standby groups per interface with
recirprocal priorities on the groups.
The same thing could be done with VRRP by using multiple virtual
routers and reversing the priorities, but then one would need a
different IP address for each of the VRIDs.
On 4/14/05, Tina <kramarv(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
As well as I am.
"Greger V. Teigre" <greger(a)teigre.com> wrote:
The only bright point I can offer here is that
I'm 100% certain that
the LVS source code has __not__ been modified.
Which really makes me annoyed, because I cannot right now see any other
obvious path (i.e. simpler).
g-)
Sorry,
Paul
On Apr 11, 2005 4:46 AM, Greger V. Teigre <greger(a)teigre.com> wrote:
After my last email, I looked at ktcpvs and realized I ignored a
couple of things: ktcpvs only supports tcp (http is obviously
tcp-based, but I thought it supported udp for other protocols). I
don't know how much work implementing udp would be.
Here is a discussion of SIP and LVS that I found useful (though
not encouraging).
http://www.austintek.com/LVS/LVS-HOWTO/HOWTO/LVS-HOWTO.services_that_dont_w…
Paul: I'm starting to get really curious on the standard LVS
components used for your stickiness! I'm not aware (also after
searching now) of an LVS balancing mechanism that allows correct
stickness on SIP udp...!
And I found other too who are looking for it:
http://archive.linuxvirtualserver.org/html/lvs-users/2005-02/msg00251.html
My understanding is that ipvs must be extended (according to the
developer) with a call-id based scheduler and that this work has
several people willing to fund development, but that this has not(?)
started yet. The problem is that ipvs is based on ip header analysis
and extending the hashing algorithms to also include payload-based
analysis is not straight-forward.
g-)
________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
9:12 a.m.
New subject: LVS, load balancing, and stickness was ==> Re: [Serusers] more usrloc synchronization
All,
AFAIK HSRP is proprietary to cisco and there are no implementations of hsrp
on linux. I found vgpd (http://vgpd.freaknet.org/) which claims to be
similar but not compatible with hsrp. Does anyone know of available
implementations of vrrp or hsrp on linux(preferably redhat or fedora)?
Alex
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On
Behalf Of maka
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 1:07 AM
To: kramarv(a)yahoo.com
Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: LVS, load balancing, and stickness was ==> Re: [Serusers] more
usrloc synchronization
You are probably right. HSRP could actually be used for load
balancing, as could VRRP (which is what I believe you mean by
active/active) by defining multiple standby groups per interface with
recirprocal priorities on the groups.
The same thing could be done with VRRP by using multiple virtual
routers and reversing the priorities, but then one would need a
different IP address for each of the VRIDs.
On 4/14/05, Tina <kramarv(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
As well as I am.
"Greger V. Teigre" <greger(a)teigre.com> wrote:
http://www.austintek.com/LVS/LVS-HOWTO/HOWTO/LVS-HOWTO.services_that_dont_wo
rk_yet.html
The only bright point I can offer here is that
I'm 100% certain that
the LVS source code has __not__ been modified.
Which really makes me annoyed, because I cannot right now see any other
obvious path (i.e. simpler).
g-)
Sorry,
Paul
On Apr 11, 2005 4:46 AM, Greger V. Teigre <greger(a)teigre.com> wrote:
After my last email, I looked at ktcpvs and realized I ignored a
couple of things: ktcpvs only supports tcp (http is obviously
tcp-based, but I thought it supported udp for other protocols). I
don't know how much work implementing udp would be.
Here is a discussion of SIP and LVS that I found useful (though
not encouraging).
Paul: I'm starting to get really curious on the standard LVS
components used for your stickiness! I'm not aware (also after
searching now) of an LVS balancing mechanism that allows correct
stickness on SIP udp...!
And I found other too who are looking for it:
http://archive.linuxvirtualserver.org/html/lvs-users/2005-02/msg00251.html
My understanding is that ipvs must be extended (according to the
developer) with a call-id based scheduler and that this work has
several people willing to fund development, but that this has not(?)
started yet. The problem is that ipvs is based on ip header analysis
and extending the hashing algorithms to also include payload-based
analysis is not straight-forward.
g-)
________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
7099
days inactive
7099
days old
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Alex Vishnev -
maka -
Tina