[SSI] Re: keepalive with Cluster infrastructure health check.

Alexandre Cassen Alexandre.Cassen at wanadoo.fr
Tue May 14 23:28:59 BST 2002


Bruce,

>  I think there may be some confusion.  Hopefully I can
>clarify.  There was a technology on Unixware called
>NonStop Clusters for Unixware (NSC for short) that was SSI.
>The networking piece of NSC had two parts - a CVIP (Cluster
>Virtual IP) capability and multi-homed host across the cluster
>capability.  The CVIP capability was quite similar to LVS.  I
>won't go into all the detail of what the multi-homed capability
>was, although I would be happy to another time.
>
>As we are moving various NSC functionality to Linux, we decided to
>leverage the LVS activity rather than porting the CVIP
>capability we had.  The intent is not to have LVS and
>CVIP but just LVS+.

aah....!!!! OK, limpid ! this is what was suspecting. LVS+ you mean LVS for 
CI/SSI (just kidding)

>The goal of integrating CI/SSI with LVS was to enhance the CI/SSI
>environment, not necessarily enhance all LVS environments.  As you
>point out, the plan is that the director(s) would be inside the CI/SSI
>cluster and would load level connections only to nodes also in the
>cluster.  Integration involves reconciling the nodenum with IP
>addresses and leveraging the nodedown capability of CI/SSI when
>servers go down and facilitating a failover of the director
>when that node goes down.

OK. here the VRRP and (keepalived) healthcheck derivation to CI/SSI code 
with the patch from Aneesh.
Derivating Healthceck to the inside CI/SSI check framework will limit 
keepalived CI/SSI integration to the internal CI/SSI available checkers ? 
This can be a starting point, I agree.

>There is also interest in extending LVS in this environment in a couple of
>ways.  First, we may be able to automatically detect when processes bind()
>to a registered VIP port, and thus avoid having to declare where the
>servers for a port are.  More significantly, however, we are considering
>allowing the VIP to be used for outgoing connections.

Ok, I see. Interresting point...

>Below I tried to clear up some of the possible confusion.

Ok, thanks for your clarifications, I am sync with your CI/SSI conceptual 
design, I was confusing with the CVIP since I have red some infos on this 
in pdf on the site.

Best regards and thanks for your time,
Alexandre





More information about the lvs-users mailing list