 | | | Failover IP router | Failover IP router 2007-12-02 - By Steven Buehler
Back
> -- --Original Message-- --
> From: redhat-list-bounces@(protected) [mailto:redhat-list-
> bounces@(protected)] On Behalf Of Tom Greaser
> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 5:20 AM
> To: redhat-list@(protected)
> Subject: Re: Failover IP router
>
> Sorry if ived missed any posts and someone has already posted this
> but have you looked at BalanceNG. It seems to offer what your wanting
> plus you can run both web servers at once.. no wasted resources just
> running waiting to be used.
>
>
> > El Martes, 27 de Noviembre de 2007 22:15, Steven Buehler escribi???:
> > I have been googleing for this, but can't seem to find the right
> answer.
> > What I am trying to do is to create a failover router on a redhat
> box.
> > 1. website.com will be on 2 servers
> > 2. website.com has one IP address
> > 3. redhat box router will have the 1 IP address for website.com on
> it.
> > 4. website.com server1 will be on 192.168.1.10
> > 5. website.com server2 will be on 192.168.1.11
> > 6. If website.com server1 fails, website.com server2 will take
> over.
> >
> > We are not worried about cookies that have been set on server1 to be
> moved
> > to server2. We are just worried about the second machine taking
> over.
> > What would be better is if it could be a load balancing setup so that
> it
> > will use both servers, but if one fails, people will not notice it
> because
> > the other server will then be taking all of the requests.
> >
> > I have googled for "Linux failover iptables router" and a few other
> > combinations of words, but what I keep finding is failover for the
> outbound
> > connections. Having 3 Nic cards 1 going to one ISP, 1 going to
> another ISP
> > and one going to the internal network. Maybe I am just using the
> wrong
> > wording. Any url links for instructions would be appreciated.
> >
> > Thank You
>
> Why not installing LVS+Keepalive for instance?
> I had the same scenario some months ago (aside from the fact that
> cookies were
> importatn, but keepalived did the trick with that)
>
> If you need any help either woth LVS or Keepalive, let me know or let
> this
> list know.
>
> Hope this helps
> Manuel.
>
> --
> Manuel Arostegui Ramirez.
>
> Electronic Mail is not secure, may not be read every day, and should
> not
> be used for urgent or sensitive issues.
>
There was a lot of help, but almost all went toward RedHat Cluster Suite. I
tried to get that running with no luck. My boss was also trying to find a
solution and ran across a couple of programs. "Pen" and "vrrpd" which were
very easy to setup and doesn't require a 3rd box for the router. The
combination is called " The Ultimate Cheapskate Cluster". Pen is for load
balancing and will transfer people to the correct server if one of the other
servers is down. Vrrpd is used as a failover router. Multiple servers run
vrrpd in front of "Pen" using the same external IP address. If one of the
servers goes down, the other server takes over the use of that external IP.
Both programs are free and very fast to setup compared to other options. We
were in a crunch for time and couldn't get an appliance ordered, shipped and
setup in time for our deadline this Monday. I believe that a couple of
appliances will work better in the future, but for the demo and testing, this
was perfect. vrrpd works as a failover router and if money matters, the it is
the way to go so that you don't have one point of failure like you would if you
ran just ONE appliance in front of the machines.
http://siag.nu/pen/vrrpd-linux2.shtml
Thanks to all
Steve
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@(protected)?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
|
|
|