ldirector and heartbeat

[Jason Downing]

> No but that does sound like a good idea. If I prepare a patch are
> you able to test it to see if it helps your problem?

I would be happy to test such a patch. I think I will want it too.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Horms" <horms at verge.net.au>
To: "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list." 
<lvs-users at LinuxVirtualServer.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: ldirector and heartbeat


> In article <449DA02F.8090608 at agora-net.com> you wrote:
>> I see that ldirector docs recommend starting it by heartbeat.
>>
>> I run two LVS boxes, in active-passive mode that serve as a
>> load-balancer.  I've been running ldirectord on both boxes all the time
>> instead of starting it with heartbeat because it take about 2 minutes
>> for ldirector to test all my services and come to a fully functional
>> state.  So it does failover much faster if the secondary box already has
>> ldirectord running.
>>
>> It was a way to start ldirectord  where it assumes the services are good
>> until  they are tested?  That would reduce the failover time if
>> ldriectord is started it on failover.  And the services all almost alway
>> there anyway.
>
> No but that does sound like a good idea. If I prepare a patch are
> you able to test it to see if it helps your problem?
>
>> Is there a compelling reason for not running ldirector on both the LVS
>> boxes all the time?  I realize I have all those extra service checks
>> happening, but that seems worth it for the fast cut-over times.
>
> For simple setups, the answer is usually that it saves network traffic
> and load on the real servers. My personal oppinion is if that
> ldirectord's checks are loading your network and real-servers, then
> you have big problems, but hey.
>
> For more complex setups, by which I am refering to ones where
> real-servers and linux-directors are the same machines, then I'm
> pretty sure you need to have heartbeat manage ldirectord or the whole
> thing will fall over in a bit mess.
>
> In short, if your linux-directors and real-servers are separate
> machines, and you want to run ldirectord on both of them from boot,
> then you are likely (unless I've forgotten something) to resolve
> your problem.
>
>> I'm trying to have heartbeat handle as little as possible to keep the
>> cut-over time as short as possible.  So I run all the services I can on
>> the secondary, so I don't have to wait for them to start.  Is there a
>> good argument for not doing this?
>
> There are arguments, on a case by case basis, but in general I agree
> with your point there. Its just easier to document that you should
> have heartbeat manage resources, as that always works.
>
>> The truth of the matter is it only cuts over when I'm testing it any
>> way, but I'm sure the day will come...
>
> Probably at a very invonvenient moment...
>
> -- 
> Horms
> H: http://www.vergenet.net/~horms/          W: 
> http://www.valinux.co.jp/en/
>
> _______________________________________________
> LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users at LinuxVirtualServer.org
> Send requests to lvs-users-request at LinuxVirtualServer.org
> or go to http://www.in-addr.de/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users