3 ms·
How is LVS not practical? LVS is awesome... it's kernel-level and doesn't use any resources, plus is very simple but flexible. Forget the ultramonkey configurat
by drusenko 18y ago
How is LVS not practical? LVS is awesome... it's kernel-level and doesn't use any resources, plus is very simple but flexible. Forget the ultramonkey configurations and go with keepalived to handle the monitoring, failover, etc.
- SwellJoe 18y ago"for the vast majority of situations" In my experience, balancing works better with smarts, thus my big long tirade about Squid (which is historically about the smartest option...though not necessarily the fastest...but fast enough). LVS has its place, and I've used it when the situation is appropriate, it just isn't all that common that you really need to be able to saturate a Gb pipe, and the installation, maintenance, and configuration burden is much higher for a kernel level tool. So, perhaps I should have been careful not to sound so dismissive of a tool that I like (and I'll note that you can find posts by me on the LVS mailing list from the first few months of the projects existence). My previous company even sponsored development of several related management tools.