[lvs-users] Is it worth reading on?

Kyrios kyrios at gmail.com
Thu Jun 28 14:30:01 BST 2007


Hi Bill,

big thanks for your fast answer.

I think I already know that LVS isn't the right "tool" for my demands after
reading you answer.

To be sure another try describing what should happen:

A connection comes in to a "director". The connection is on Port 1234. The
director searches a file/DB/CMDB. Based on the information found there he
decides to redirect the server to RL#2. Another day RL#2 is down for
maintenance. The CMDB/file/DB reflects this and "the" gameserver is running
on RL#3. The Director then redirects the connection to #3.

Thorsten

On 6/28/07, Bill Omer <bill.omer at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/28/07, Kyrios <kyrios at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm currently reading the LVS HOWTO and came to the point where I'm
> > absolutely unsure if it will do what I need. I will try to explain what
> I'm
> > searching for and perhaps you could tell me if it's woth reading on  ;)
> >
> > I'm searching a solution to cluster Gameservers. The solution should
> make
> > Gameservers (which are unique through the used TCP/UDP Port) transparent
> to
> > end users. Let's say I got 6 Realservers and I notice that Realserver #1
> is
> > under heavy load while Realserver #3 is nearly idle. Then I will stop
> the
> > instance on #1 and launch it on #3. I would afterwards "tell" this to
> the
> > "Director" and it will send the packtes to #3. Automated load balancing
> is
> > out of the scope since the decission is clear. What I mean by this is
> that
> > for instance if the client connects to Port 1234 there exists only one
> > Gameserver on the Realservers which listens on 1234. This information
> could
> > be provided to the director by a script or something.
> >
> > Step by Step I would like to add:
> > - automated load balancing (check CPU load=>kill the gameserver
> > process=>start on another realserver)
> > - failover mechanisms
> >
> >
> > Is LVS the right solution for me? Is it worth reading on?
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> > Thorsten
> >
> > --
> > ... black holes are where god divided by zero.
>
>
>
> Well, I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to do here.
>
> Basically, lets say you have your 6 real servers sitting behind your
> director.  A connection to port 1234 comes in, do you want *all*
> connections to go to the same server each time?  If so, then LVS might
> not be what you want.
>
> If you want to balance the traffic behind all 6 servers, then yes, you
> want LVS.  If you want auto fail over between a pair of servers, then
> you want to use Heartbeat only.
>
> With game servers, you probably want all connections to go to the same
> server correct?   LVS might not be the right solution for you unless
> all the users are able to inter operate between all the real servers,
> in which case LVS would be ideal.   Otherwise, to achieve just high
> availability, use Heartbeat.
>
>
> -Bill
>
> _______________________________________________
> LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users at LinuxVirtualServer.org
> Send requests to lvs-users-request at LinuxVirtualServer.org
> or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
>



-- 
... black holes are where god divided by zero.



More information about the lvs-users mailing list