RE: Feasability?
"Posts" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.redhat.piranha |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <002e01c2e9a7$edf82cb0$6501a8c0@XP1> |
Give the real server two IP addresses on different subnets & ethernet cards and two entries in lvs.cf. Kawika Ohumukini 2-Tier Software, Inc. > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Greg Boehnlein > Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 1:19 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Feasability? > > > Hello, > I have an LVS cluster running in lvs mode with direct > routing. I > have a client that wants a Fail-Over solution for his > Webserver so that if > his T-1 goes down, we can re-route the traffic over his > Ethernet link. > Here is a rough diagram: > > > VIP -> LVS Router > T-1 > Real Server (x.x.x.x) > > In the event of a failure, I want the same to follow this path: > > VIP -> LVS Router > Ethernet > Real Server (y.y.y.y) > > Essentially what I am attempting to do is see if LVS can > support failover > using a single Real-Server. > > -- > Vice President of N2Net, a New Age Consulting Service, > Inc. Company > http://www.n2net.net Where everything clicks into place! > KP-216-121-ST > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Piranha-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pi> ranha-list >