Re: decent loadbalancing with 2 different ISP's with minimum risks
From: Ravi (ravivsn_at_roc.co.in)
Date: 05/07/04
- Previous message: Peter Mueller: "RE: decent loadbalancing with 2 different ISP's with minimum risk s"
- In reply to: James Couzens: "Re: decent loadbalancing with 2 different ISP's with minimum risks"
- Next in thread: Cedric Blancher: "Re: decent loadbalancing with 2 different ISP's with minimum risks"
- Reply: Cedric Blancher: "Re: decent loadbalancing with 2 different ISP's with minimum risks"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 09:44:34 +0530 To: focus-linux@securityfocus.com
James Couzens wrote:
>>Le sam 17/04/2004 à 06:46, Ravi a écrit :
>>
>>
>>> -vrrpd if using two gateways
>>>
>>>
>>VRRP is a failover protocol. I don't see how you can achieve load
>>balancing with.
>>
>>
Yes VRRP is a failover protocol. But you can also achieve Load
balancing. Assume you are using two gateways. Both have VRRP enabled in
it. Lets say they are A and B.
Scenario 1: A as Master, B as slave
This is normal case where you achieve Auto Fail over.
Scenario 2: A as Master , B as slave with Virtual IP as VIP1 and also A
as Slave and B as Master with virtual IP as VIP2
In this case you would be running two instances of VRRPd. A group of
machines will use VIP1 as gateway and a other one uses VIP2 as gateway.
In this way load balancing is achived with scenario 2
HTH,
Best Regards,
-Ravi
- Previous message: Peter Mueller: "RE: decent loadbalancing with 2 different ISP's with minimum risk s"
- In reply to: James Couzens: "Re: decent loadbalancing with 2 different ISP's with minimum risks"
- Next in thread: Cedric Blancher: "Re: decent loadbalancing with 2 different ISP's with minimum risks"
- Reply: Cedric Blancher: "Re: decent loadbalancing with 2 different ISP's with minimum risks"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|