[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Linux-cluster] Linux Virtual Server Vs RedHat Cluster

> Think of Linux Virtual Server (LVS) as a load balancer. You have one (or
> more) machine functions as load balancer that distributes the load to
> multiple "real" servers. Usually you need some kind of frontend to LVS,
> such as piranha or keepalived.
So this meand that apart from my real two servers, I need to have
aother couple of machines for load balancing, right ?

> Since your priority is HA (which means active-standby configuration is
> OK), you can simply use redhat cluster without GFS. The cluster suite

But then how can I make sure that data availability is attained?
Since I don't have a shared storage, I think GFS+GNBD should be used.

> If you need HP and HA you can use redhat cluster with GFS to provide
> cluster file system and run your services on both nodes, but you'll also
> need some kind of load balancer (such as LVS) to distribute the load
> between those two nodes.
Thanks, this made my confusion lesser. I was actually searching for
the purpose of LVS. and unluckily couldn't find one.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]