| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
>Not all load balancers. http specific load balancers (pen, haproxy, >...) do only forward the load balancer ip. But you can using lvs >(linux virtual server) and it can forward the originating ip. >Lvs-nat could be compared to cisco local director (except in price), >others can do similar things, like f5 and zeus load balancers, all >come at a price except lvs. FWIW, the F5 Big-IP can go either way. I wouldn't put load balancers of any sort on the public-facing side of any mail system, but load balancing can be very useful when done robustly (i.e. the load balancers are themselves redundant rather then a single one being a SPOF) to coddle naive/stupid/simple systems that want to send mail but can only handle a single smarthost model. > I am doing smtp load balancing right >now with lvs-nat and its working like a champ. The outside and the >real servers have no clue that the load balancer even exists. That begs the question: why? For all but the very largest mail systems, DNS-based load sharing via multiple same-value MX records pointing at names that may have multiple A records gets the load balance and availability jobs done without the extra layer. -- Bill Cole bill
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© 2004-2008 readlist.com