[racktables-users] Re: loadbalancer as a vm
- From: Michael Requeny <michael.requeny@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: racktables-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 10:52:49 -0400
We run ~50 loadbalancers on LVS via ESX VMs.
In our environment 80,000 desktops go through a couple of VM load balancers
for proxy'd internet access.
Although we haven't got into RackTables LVS bits and pieces yet...just
wanted to reassure you that LVS performs great in VM.
Thanks,
Mike
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Dave Augustus
<davea@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> In my situation, we have some loadbalancers which are currently physical
> but we are planning to make them virtual on CentOS 5.5 kvm. But I see that
> after adding some loadbalanced-services, I can only designate a PHYSICAL
> host as a load balancer. We are using a VM (ESX) currently without a problem
> but this observation brings up a few questions in my mind.
>
> Is it a "good" practice to have a VM serve as a load balancer?
>
> How can I use Racktables to signify this without "fudging" my current setup
> by making those VMs physical?
>
> Thanks,
> Dave
>
>
Home of Florida's first LEED Gold Certified School
Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your
e-mail address
released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail
to this entity.
Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing.
Other related posts:
