Re: [Keepalived-devel] Re: Question concerning virtual mac address
Status: Beta
Brought to you by:
acassen
|
From: Sebastien R. <Seb...@di...> - 2005-04-26 17:06:11
|
Le Mardi 26 Avril 2005 18:56, Christian Schuhegger a =E9crit : > currently i am doing exactly that with vrrpd. but as keepalived already > has support for all kinds of "alive" checks it would have been nice to > use ONE solution instead of a "bricolage". You're right ;-) > besides that you then also have to have another script which checks if > your checker-script (check if apache is alive) is running, ... basically > a very bad situation.=20 The checker can be very simple and frequently monitored by cron for example. > but if it would be integrated into keepalived then=20 > if keepalived would crash nothing would be lost, because the backup-vrrp > daemon would just take over the virtual ip. Keepalived use its own watchdog system to monitored vrrp and lvs threads. > > The latency of the failover will be quite bad compared to a standard LVS > > architecture, but you can use service on the same box than the director. > > actually no, why? because if you plug off the cable then anyway the > original master vrrp daemon is not visible outside anymore and therefore > the situation is equivalent to not having such a script and if the cable > is plugged back again then the backup-server will just keep the virtual > ip a bit longer until the original master vrrp daemon has started up agai= n. Sure. I was thinking in case of apache failure without network failure ;=20 Keepalived will not switch without some help. In case of a pure network failure, the simple checker will continue to say = ok=20 from his point of view, but keepalived will do the job. @+ =2D-=20 S=E9bastien |