need some insight and direction

Wed Aug 16 07:17:09 BST 2006

hi there,

i happene to see ur query in LVS formus and we believe that we have an 
answer for you question , i am samrat patel frm india i am a graduate in 
computer sci and engineering and also a researcher in papralle processing 
and cluster computing .. well we have already tried this experiment but we 
tried this on the my private LAN of my ISP provider ...well still there are 
some loopholes in this still we managed to work it out well ...also you will 
have to consider various issues such as the OS both on the clients and the 
server ..? well answer to you query is possible ...

plz to contact us .. we are eager to help you ... we will have to understand 
each other well

eagerly awaiting your response

thanking you

samrat

>From: lvs-users-request at LinuxVirtualServer.org
>Reply-To: lvs-users at LinuxVirtualServer.org
>To: lvs-users at LinuxVirtualServer.org
>Subject: lvs-users Digest, Vol 43, Issue 13
>Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 12:00:23 +0200 (CEST)
>
>Send lvs-users mailing list submissions to
>	lvs-users at LinuxVirtualServer.org
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>	http://www.in-addr.de/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>	lvs-users-request at LinuxVirtualServer.org
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>	lvs-users-owner at LinuxVirtualServer.org
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of lvs-users digest..."

>Today's Topics:
>
>    1. need some insight and direction (cschoon at cfl.rr.com)
>    2. Re: need some insight and direction (Jason Martin)
>    3. Lost packets and dead/warntime (Sebastian Vieira)
>    4. Re: Lost packets and dead/warntime (Graeme Fowler)

>From: cschoon at cfl.rr.com
>Reply-To: "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing 
>list."<lvs-users at LinuxVirtualServer.org>
>To: lvs-users at LinuxVirtualServer.org
>Subject: need some insight and direction
>Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:01:41 -0400
>I am a consultant for a large law firm in Orlando, Fl. I have been
>asked to do some research into Linux Clustering. to be specific, the
>vision is to setup a linux cluster, run VMWare on the cluster, then
>run Microsoft / Novell servers in VMWare.
>
>If that is possible, then is it possible to add all 200+ workstations
>to the cluster and run the desktop OS (Win XP / Win 98) on top of
>that? Thus creating a cluster in the neighborhood of 243 nodes.

>From: Jason Martin <jhmartin at toger.us>
>Reply-To: "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing 
>list."<lvs-users at LinuxVirtualServer.org>
>To: lvs-users at LinuxVirtualServer.org
>Subject: Re: need some insight and direction
>Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:18:13 -0700
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 03:01:41PM -0400, cschoon at cfl.rr.com wrote:
> > I am a consultant for a large law firm in Orlando, Fl. I have been
> > asked to do some research into Linux Clustering. to be specific, the
> > vision is to setup a linux cluster, run VMWare on the cluster, then
> > run Microsoft / Novell servers in VMWare.
> >
> > If that is possible, then is it possible to add all 200+ workstations
> > to the cluster and run the desktop OS (Win XP / Win 98) on top of
> > that? Thus creating a cluster in the neighborhood of 243 nodes.
>Lets back up a second.
>
>VMware is a tool that allows you to run a set of virtual
>machines on one physical machine. VMware ESX has the concept of
>a 'cluster' whereby VMs will automatically migrate between
>physical machines to balance load, or automatically reboot onto
>a working node if the primary as failed. This feature requires
>that all of the servers involved used a shared storage device.
>For server applications, you could certainly run the servers
>inside a VMWare VM.
>
>Assuming you had multiple VMs performing a given webhosting
>task, you could use Linux LVS to balance the incoming traffic
>across them.
>
>However, Linux LVS doesn't have the concept of 'adding machines
>to a cluster' in the same sense that a NUMA supercomputer can add
>nodes and treat them as a single large image.  The physical
>machines are still disparate.
>
>I don't know that it makes any sense to have your desktops /
>workstations run VMWare and then run Windows on top of it. It
>would make more sense to have your desktops run  a cut down
>Windows natively, then RDP into a VM running on dedicated VMWare
>servers.
>
>Perhaps you could give us a better idea of what you are trying
>to accomplish?
>- -Jason Martin
>- --
>Taglines can be more interesting than messages!
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
>Comment: --no-verbose
>
>iD8DBQFE4NqFeDShAkRw0YoRAldmAKDNhDm9PyyWSumr9McSB0ELUvRH3wCeP2nT
>DeHu62ztjaLa2kqHd/woGcE=
>=KPgZ
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

>From: "Sebastian Vieira" <sebvieira at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing 
>list."<lvs-users at LinuxVirtualServer.org>
>To: "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing 
>list."<lvs-users at linuxvirtualserver.org>
>Subject: Lost packets and dead/warntime
>Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:11:17 +0200
>Hi,
>
>I'm moving 2 LVS's from VMWare to physical boxes, but strangely enough i 
>get
>better performance with failovers on vmware, than i get on the physical
>machines. They are now setup with 3 nics; eth0 and eth1 are bonded (trés
>cool) and are used for all the client/server connections, and eth2 is used
>for the heartbeat and sync daemons. Kernel used is 2.6.16 (gentoo-r9).
>
>On vmware i rarely had lost packets, but on the physical boxes i get about
>3-5 lost packets each 24h. My settings from ha.cf:
>
>keepalive 50ms
>deadtime 3
>warntime 1
>initdead 120
>
>That's one thing. The other is when i used to do a failover on vmware 
>almost
>all connections were transferred, and now less than 10%  :|
>
>Anyone with a tip?
>
>
>Sebastian

>From: Graeme Fowler <graeme at graemef.net>
>Reply-To: "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing 
>list."<lvs-users at LinuxVirtualServer.org>
>To: "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing 
>list."<lvs-users at LinuxVirtualServer.org>
>Subject: Re: Lost packets and dead/warntime
>Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:20:56 +0100
>On 15/08/2006 08:11, Sebastian Vieira wrote:
><snip>
>>Anyone with a tip?
>
>Stop your eth2 NICs from autonegotiating with the appropriate driver 
>options in modules.conf, modprobe.conf, /etc/modules or whatever your 
>distro uses. If they're 100 meg cards, force them both to 100BaseTX-FD; for 
>gig cards force them to 1000BaseTX-FD.
>
>It sounds to me like you've got both ends of the link continually 
>renegotiating, which will mean a certain amount of errors - although they 
>may retransmit at L2, it might mean you get L3 timeouts on occasion.
>
>Inside your VMs you won't have this problem (obviously) unless you're 
>running on two VMWare host servers with a corresponding physical problem.
>
>You can fiddle with the card settings by using mii-tool in real time.
>
>Graeme

>_______________________________________________
>lvs-users mailing list
>lvs-users at LinuxVirtualServer.org
>http://www.in-addr.de/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users

_________________________________________________________________
Connect with your friends who use Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Click! 
http://www.msnspecials.in/wlmyahoo/index.asp