Re: [squid-users] LVS/TUN or LVS/DR

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 20:49:40 +0100 (CET), Henrik Nordstrom
<hno@squid-cache.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Askar wrote:
>
> > I am wondering if anyone here running "Virtual Server via IP Tunneling" or
> > "Virtual Server via Direct Routing", LVS based caches cluster.
>

Yep, I am currently using a LVS/DR LVS cluster of 2 squid proxies in
our production environment. Persistency is set at 10mins to get around
some small issues we had with cache children when we were using DNS
round robin - not sure if persistency is needed or not but put it in
just in case.

No problems whatsoever so far (been running for about a month).
Incidentally, and most definitely off topic, we are also using LVS to
load balance HTTP/S, FTP, IMAP, POP and LDAP - works like a charm.

Regards,
David Brown

> Not currently, but I have used LVS/DR and LVS/NAT in the past a lot to
> load balance servers, including Squid proxy servers. Never had any reason
> to use LVS/TUN as you only need this if there is a router inbetween LVS
> and the host, and LVS/NAT is not desireable.
>
> Why you ask?
>
> Regards
> Henrik
>
Received on Tue Feb 08 2005 - 15:30:27 MST