Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Building a Linux Virtual Server

Posted by Zonk on from the virtual-but-stable dept.

prostoalex writes "NewsForge (an OSTG site) has an article that discusses the details of building a cluster for a virtual server - an environment where one can add and remove machines as needed, to account for high-traffic Web site of intensive database application: 'The main advantage of using LVS is that unlike Microsoft network load-balancing clusters, the LVS allows you to add a node running any operating system that supports TCP/IP to the cluster.'"

7 of 93 comments (clear)

  1. Dubious benefit? by Sv-Manowar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The article seems to suggest placing a large number of real servers behind a single virtual server. Surely this is putting a point of weakness in front of a potentially redundant cluster. Load balancing has been done better by specific hardware made by Foundry and the like. I'm not seeing the benefit over 'traditional' clustering with this solution.

    --
    Business Voyeur
  2. Re:PC's are not for networking by badriram · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I agree that PCs do not make very good network devices. But they offer something in price, that none of the other appliances i know of can match.

  3. Re:PC's are not for networking by Dasein · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Many F5 appliances were not much more than FreeBSD PCs

    --
    You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake -- but you could be if you got off your ass.
  4. Built one. by NovySan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Great for http. Bad for nfs and smb/cifs.

  5. my experience by buddha42 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Back when I worked for my college's web department I oversaw moving their website from the old server platform to a load balanced cluster of x86 servers using LVS/linux/apache/php/mysql. It is not a minor undertaking in any way. Configuring, tweaking, and troubleshooting all the various elements requires an intense amount of trial and error and confusion. Think of it like sendmail or asterisk (its not quite that bad). Overall, the cost of implimenting it in manhours and downtime from learning-experiences weren't worth it being "free". If I had to do it again, I'd buy real network equipment. Even if used off ebay, just get a failover pair.

    Now if someone came out with a good embedded linux running lvs with a nice web and cli interface, on solid state hardware, that was a decent amount cheaper than brand name equipment, put up a respectably proffessional looking site, and develop a loyal following, I'd consider it.

  6. Re:PC's are not for networking by __aanonl8035 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I want to second your comment as I have had a similar experience. Now, do not get me wrong... I love linux. I have used RedHat and Debian for all kinds of tasks.
    I worked for a small ISP in the mid 90s and there were times, when in a pinch I had to setup a linux router or load balancer. And I got them to work. But there was always a lot of effort involved in getting it to work, and they were always precarious in operation. It was scarey to do upgrades. It was scarey to have hard drives fail.
    It was always just so much simpler to get a more expensive Cisco box in the long run due to its design, documentation, an performance.

  7. Nice, but in the real world (ie: Live on the WWW?) by niteware · · Score: 2, Insightful

    LVS is not really new news and it is a nice hack and has some good use cases. But in the real world 'dictated and redundant ' load balancers (such as BigIP, etc..) are the only way you are going to run a 24/7 large dynamic web site. Would you REALLY place ONE box (Linux or not) as the gateway/proxy to your web farm, if so, then make so it is a fully redundant box (including CPU) otherwise on the day after the melt down start looking for another job. And if you really place one fully redundant box as your web farm proxy the money you spent on it is going to 10x the cost of a few BigIPs and that big box is not going to be running Linux anyway.... And a warm LVS spare is not really an option either if you are running a 24/7 site, setting up a keep-alive response system to determine if your LVS box croaked and automatically re-writing some IOS routing to use the warm spare is wrought with issues (I've seen some great setups and hacks, but not something that I would use in any type of business at is counting on revenue from their web site).

    And as far as 'intensive database application' as quoted in the article, LVS does nothing for you in terms of database synchronization. If you are running a site generated from fairly static data that is synced once in a blue moon then OK you can roll a SQL engine onto each box in the farm and sync them via remote scripts, but that is not what I would call a 'intensive database application'.