[lvs-users] Antw: Re: Sorry, it's pretty unusable!

Malcolm Turnbull malcolm at loadbalancer.org
Mon Oct 21 13:29:20 BST 2013


I've been mildly amused by this whole thread so I thought I would jump in.....

Ulrich,

You obviously want a full Layer 7 reverse proxy so go and use HAProxy
(you will find it much easier)
http://haproxy.1wt.eu/

LVS is an excellent high performance fully featured layer 4 load
balancer, at least 4 commercial load balancer vendors use it
extensively including my company:
Loadbalancer.org Ltd ( http://www.loadbalancer.org ).
Kemp Technologies (http://kemptechnologies.com), Barracuda Networks (
https://www.barracuda.com/ )and others also use it...

The fact that LVS works so well and so reliably is probably why this
list is so quiet these days!

The following description of the standard load balancing methods may
help you: http://www.loadbalancer.org/load_balancing_methods.php



On 21 October 2013 12:52, Ulrich Windl
<Ulrich.Windl at rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote:
>>>> Tom van Leeuwen <tom.van.leeuwen at saasplaza.com> schrieb am 17.10.2013 um 15:22
> in Nachricht <525FE48C.4080506 at saasplaza.com>:
>> So he may not be receiving your reply.
>>
>> Ulrich if you want source nat on your LVS box, you'll have to do:
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> I really appreciate your help, but...
>
>>
>> 1) Create a loadbalancer:
>> ipvsadm -A -t 192.168.200.100:443
>> # add real servers
>>
>> 2) Create the source nat rule for this loadbalancer:
>> iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -m ipvs --vaddr 192.168.200.100/32
>> --vport 443 -j MASQUERADE
>
> Unfortunately this does not work:
> iptables v1.4.6: Couldn't load match `ipvs':/usr/lib64/xtables/libipt_ipvs.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
>  # ls /usr/lib64/xtables
> libip6t_HL.so          libipt_icmp.so        libxt_hashlimit.so
> libip6t_LOG.so         libipt_realm.so       libxt_helper.so
> libip6t_REJECT.so      libipt_set.so         libxt_iprange.so
> libip6t_ah.so          libipt_ttl.so         libxt_length.so
> libip6t_dst.so         libipt_unclean.so     libxt_limit.so
> libip6t_eui64.so       libxt_AUDIT.so        libxt_mac.so
> libip6t_frag.so        libxt_CLASSIFY.so     libxt_mark.so
> libip6t_hbh.so         libxt_CONNMARK.so     libxt_multiport.so
> libip6t_hl.so          libxt_CONNSECMARK.so  libxt_osf.so
> libip6t_icmp6.so       libxt_DSCP.so         libxt_owner.so
> libip6t_ipv6header.so  libxt_MARK.so         libxt_physdev.so
> libip6t_mh.so          libxt_NFLOG.so        libxt_pkttype.so
> libip6t_rt.so          libxt_NFQUEUE.so      libxt_policy.so
> libipt_CLUSTERIP.so    libxt_NOTRACK.so      libxt_quota.so
> libipt_DNAT.so         libxt_RATEEST.so      libxt_rateest.so
> libipt_ECN.so          libxt_SECMARK.so      libxt_recent.so
> libipt_LOG.so          libxt_TCPMSS.so       libxt_sctp.so
> libipt_MASQUERADE.so   libxt_TCPOPTSTRIP.so  libxt_socket.so
> libipt_MIRROR.so       libxt_TOS.so          libxt_standard.so
> libipt_NETMAP.so       libxt_TPROXY.so       libxt_state.so
> libipt_REDIRECT.so     libxt_TRACE.so        libxt_statistic.so
> libipt_REJECT.so       libxt_cluster.so      libxt_string.so
> libipt_SAME.so         libxt_comment.so      libxt_tcp.so
> libipt_SET.so          libxt_connbytes.so    libxt_tcpmss.so
> libipt_SNAT.so         libxt_connlimit.so    libxt_time.so
> libipt_TTL.so          libxt_connmark.so     libxt_tos.so
> libipt_ULOG.so         libxt_conntrack.so    libxt_u32.so
> libipt_addrtype.so     libxt_dccp.so         libxt_udp.so
> libipt_ah.so           libxt_dscp.so
> libipt_ecn.so          libxt_esp.so
>
>>
>> 3) Set sysctl setting to allow conntrack on vs
>> sysctl net.ipv4.vs.conntrack=1
>>
>> So it seems what you want is possible and not difficult at all...
>
> With SLES11 SP2 it seems a bit more difficult ;-)
>
> Regards,
> Ulrich
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tom
>>
>> On 10/17/2013 02:51 PM, Graeme Fowler wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> On 17 Oct 2013, at 07:48, "Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl at rz.uni-regensburg.de>
>> wrote:
>>>> I'm not subscribed to the list, so I hope someone will receive it anyway:
>>> Yes we did, but if people reply to the list then you won't see it unless
>> you're watching an archiver somewhere...
>>>
>>>> I could pretty well use LVS for a load-balance, high-availability scenario
>> like distributing SMTP requests to different servers, but the setup seems so
>> complicated that I won't do. Reading the documentation, I felt that the NAT
>> (masq) mechanism would be the most elegant for my requirements. However as it
>> tuned out it did not work (as for many others). The reason is simple: LVS
>> rewrites the destination TSAP (IP address and port), but it leaves the source
>> TSAP unchanged. So any replies from a real server go to the original sender,
>> instead of the LVS host
>>> That's right. In NAT mode, the realservers don't talk directly to anything
>> but the director.
>>>
>>>> The proposed solution is to set the LVS host as default gateway on any real
>> server. This has several problems:
>>>> 1) You create a SPoF on the LVS host
>>>> 2) You create a network bottleneck on the LVS host (_all_ traffic from a
>> real goes to the LVS host which must be a router)
>>>> 3) If LVS host and real server are not in the same subnet, you cannot route
>> from the real server to the LVS directly
>>>> 4) You cannot have two different LVS hosts that use different services on
>> the same real host
>>> That's NAT mode for you.
>>>
>>>> I reall wonder why you don't rewrite the source TSAP (in addition to the
>> destination TSAP) as well so that the sender of the packet seems to be the
>> LVS host. On a second rewrite the LVS destination TSAP would be rewritten to
>> the original requester. I feel this would work like a charm:
>>>> 1) The real server will reply to the LVS host automatically
>>>> 2) Only LVS traffic needs to go through LVS host
>>>> 3) LVS host does not need to be a router (after rewriting the destination, I
>> think)
>>>> 4) LVS host and real server can be in different subnets
>>>> 5) You can use one real server from different LVS hosts
>>>>
>>>> Did I overlook something that makes this impossible or impractical?
>>> Yes. You've sort of described both DR and TUN modes here, except for the
>> source IP being rewritten. LVS/IPVS is *not a proxy*, it's a fancy router. If
>> you want to do this with source rewriting, use a system such as haproxy.
>>>
>>> NAT mode is most useful where the realservers don't require any special
>> configuration apart from their default gateway.
>>>
>>> DR and TUN modes require extra configuration on the realservers, but do away
>> with the SPOF and bottleneck in the director.
>>>
>>> Graeme
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at:
>>> http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/
>>>
>>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at:
> http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/
>
> 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



-- 
Regards,

Malcolm Turnbull.

Loadbalancer.org Ltd.
Phone: +44 (0)870 443 8779
http://www.loadbalancer.org/



More information about the lvs-users mailing list