Re: [Ipvsman-users] ipvsman

[Gerry R. <gr...@ve...>]

Dr. Volker Jaenisch wrote:
> Hello Gerry!
>
> Gerry Reno schrieb:
>> Congratulations on the start of your ipvsman project! I posted a 
>> message to the ipvsman-user list.  Is it active yet? 
> Yes and no. The list was active but my email-address was wrong so I 
> don't get your posting.
> Sorry for that and thank you very much for informing me.
>
> To answer your question.
>
>> I am looking to setup a pair of
>> fault-tolerant load balancers that will route a virtual web IP to my
>> real webserver cluster nodes. I was originally thinking about heartbeat
>> and ldirectord or keepalived. How does ipvsman/d compare to these? Is
>> it an all-in-one type solution? Or do I still need some other things?
>> The description says that it replaces ldirectord. Ok, then what about
>> the heartbeat failover functionality? Do I still need heartbeat?
> ipvsman is more an all-in-one solution than ldirectord or keepalived
>
> in that way it's a realtime GUI plus a lifekeeping daemon.
>
> ipvsman does not address the problem of failover via heartbeat or VRRP 
> active active IP-sharing. I personally do not like all in wonder 
> solutions and like to divide things that are not much related to 
> reduce komplexity.
>
> Therefore in our cluster projects we run two loadbalancers running 
> ipvsman coupled over heartbeat as failover-pair. This setup is not 
> very complicated and robust enought for quite large mumber of 
> realservers.
>
> In addition we have some projects where we do only failover with 
> heartbeat and without loadbalancing at all.
>
> We have started with heartbeat and ldirectord. At this time keepalived 
> was not so well established as now. So I wrote ipvsman.
> So there are two possible advices I can give you.
>
> Use ipvsman/ipvsmand + heartbeat if you like a solution with 2 
> components.
>
> Use ipvsman + keepalived + heartbeat if you like a solution with 3 
> components or ipvsman + keepalived + VRRP.
>
> keepalived is much more complete than ipvsmand - it features more 
> availability checks, sorry_servers, firewall rules, VRRP etc.
>
> ipvsmand may have all this features some time. Our customers run sites 
> with 100 Mio. pagevisits per month with ipvsman/ipvsmand without 
> needing this advanced features.
>
> I hope this gives you a picture. Do not hesitate to ask further.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Volker
>
Volker,
  Thank you for this picture.  Would it be possible to use a combination 
of keepalived and ipvsman/d?  Can ipvsman drive keepalived?  Heartbeat 
is very much complex just for failover and I think I prefer keepalived 
for this function as well as maybe for load balance unless it would be 
better to use ipvsmand for the load balance function.

Gerry