Herbert Poetzl wrote:
>
>> Mike
>>
>>> Note that when the packet is addressed to 4.3.2.1 you need to use
>>> the mac address, otherwise the packet will not leave the lb.
>>>
>>> Ports don't help as they only come into it after the the host has
>>> been found.
>>>
>
> in general, you might want to look into the details for
> the linux network stack and rethink your setup, because
> it sounds like you actually want higher network overhead
> to satisfy a theoretical setup with not too much practical
> purpose ... YMMV
>
Herbert,
I am just trying to work out a way of getting vservers to work with our
existing load balancing setup. If we call the IPs for services on the
load balancer "virtual" and the machines actually providing those
services "real", then our current setup requires that the virtual IP
from the load balancer also exists on the real server on a private (not
responding the arps) interface. This is the equivalent of
http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/VS-DRouting.html.
The idea of the non-arp interface is that the real servers will accept
traffic bound for the virtual IP, but not announce the IP to other real
servers, and therefore not receive the traffic directly. When the real
server is a vserver, the vserver host routes all traffic from any of the
vservers to the real server, avoiding the load balancer. I understand
_why_ this happens on the vserver host, but I need some practical way of
getting the load balancing to work. So this means either 1) keeping the
load balancer setup and doing something to the networking on the vserver
host so that traffic to the virtual IP's goes out on the wire, or 2)
Changing the load balancing setup to something that works more easily
with vserver. Help towards either of these goals is much appreciated:)
In the meantime, I'll be trying to get 1) working using the iptables
route rules from Thomas Weber's thread.
Jeff
Received on Mon Aug 27 04:21:28 2007