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.'"

2 of 93 comments (clear)

  1. PC's are not for networking by gtrubetskoy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    First of all, the Linux Virtual Server project is a misnomer, because a Virtual Server these days means a virtualized operating environment similar to what is provided by VMWare, Xen, Linux Vserver, etc.

    Second, IP Load Balancing is not new and is much better done by a hardware device such as Cisco CSM, Foundry ServerIron, Nortel Alteon, etc. These things boot in seconds, use ASICs, can process orders of magnitudes more packets per second than a Linux box can, have no moving parts (except for the fans), are aesily configured, can be set up in a fail-over configuration, speak routing protocols, etc, etc.

    The Linux Virtual Server is a good project to tinker around with if you would like to understand load-balancing concepts better and do not have the $$$ for a hardware device, but I would not even consider designing a mission-critical solution using LVS instead of a hardware load-balancer.

    I remember back in my ISP days we purchased a small provider with a few T1's all running on Linux-based routers. They had a tendency to lock up and were very awkward to manage for many reasons (e.g. upgrading the kernel was a risky procedure that required way more downtime than necessary) and we replaced them with real routers pretty quickly. I kinda suspect that Linux Virtual Server may be a similar type of experience - PC's just don't make good network devices for some reason.

    Of course I'll probably get flamed for this comment...

  2. WLBS vs LVS by markclong · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Looking at these images (LVS and WLBS) it seems with LVS there is a single point of failure with the load balancer box. With Windows load balancing there is no "balancer box" and if any one server fails the cluster continues without missing a beat.

    How does LVS work if the balancer box fails?