☰

Keepalived：最高权重仅调度

tag-icon • tag-icon keepalived
Keepalived：最高权重仅调度

我有一个 Keepalived 设置，其中三个服务器位于一个 IP 后面。其中一个设置为抱歉服务器，仅提供维护页面，其他两个是实际的应用服务器。我们希望设置它，以便流量只路由到其中一个服务器，直到它发生故障，然后让另一个服务器接收流量，直到主服务器重新上线。

忽略 lb_algo 会导致此错误，并且 keepalived 拒绝启动

Jan 23 17:15:22 fw001 kernel: IPVS: Scheduler module ip_vs_ not found

lb_algo 的唯一选项是：

rr|wrr|lc|wlc|lblc|sh|dh

所有负载都以某种方式在活动服务器之间实现平衡。

配置示例

virtual_server 203.0.113.0 80 {
    delay_loop 60
    lb_algo wrr
    lb_kind NAT
    nat_mask 255.255.255.0
    persistence_timeout 50
    protocol TCP

    sorry_server 10.0.0.3 8080

    real_server 10.0.0.1 8080 {
        weight 100

        HTTP_GET {
            url {
                path /alive
                digest 7a13a825b31584fe9b135ab53974d893
            }
            connect_timeout 30
            nb_get_retry 30
            delay_before_retry 10
        }
    }

    real_server 10.0.0.2 8080 {
        weight 0

        HTTP_GET {
            url {
                path /alive
                digest 7a13a825b31584fe9b135ab53974d893
            }
            connect_timeout 30
            nb_get_retry 30
            delay_before_retry 10
        }
    }
}

有什么办法可以做到这一点？

答案1

来自 LVS 邮件列表

None of the current IPVS schedulers do know "highest weight" balancing.

With the "weighted" schedulers, you can e.g. give your primary server 
a weight of max. 65535 and your secondary server a weight of 1. This way,
you've "almost" reached the point you're asking for - however, one out
of 64k of incoming connections will go for the "secondary" server even
while the primary server is still up and running.

If your application is balancing-ready, this behaviour may be a good thing.
For example, by automatically using the secondary system for a few live 
requests, you ensure your secondary system is actually working.
By sending some live traffic, you may also "warm up" application-specific
caches, so upon a "real" failover, the application will perform much better
than with empty caches.

If you really don't need (or your applications can't handle) the 
"balancing" part (distribute traffic to different servers at the same time),
you'd probably better run "typical" high availability/failover software 
like Pacemaker or some VRRP daemon.

For example, you might put all three boxes into the same VRPR instance
and assign them different VRRP priorities, and VRRP will sort out which box 
has the "best" priority and is going to be the only live system. This results
in some kind of "cascading" failover.


If you need balancing to distribute traffic among different servers,
and you'd still like to have this "cascading" failover, you'll need to run 
at least two balancer (pairs): one for the "primary" server farm, with the 
VIP of the other balancer being set as sorry server. The second balancer 
in turn balances to the "secondary" server farm and also has the maintenance 
server set as a sorry server.

One usecase for such scenarios are web farms with slightly different content: 
if the primary farm drops out of service (e.g. due to overload or some
bleeding-edge feature malfunctioning), the secondary farm may serve a less 
feature-rich version of the same service.

相关内容