Re: [Keepalived-devel] Re: Question concerning virtual mac address

[Sebastien R. <Seb...@di...>]

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