Gerry Reno wrote: > Joseph Mack NA3T wrote: > >> realserver is an LVS term referring to the machine/node(s) >> that are being loadbalanced by the director. >> >> I've never liked the LVS nomenclature; e.g. "virtual", >> "realserver", but since I couldn't come up with an >> alternative and no-one else seemed to mind, I've just >> accepted it. We haven't had too much problems with the word >> "virtual" since we haven't run into other projects using the >> term much. However if realservers are going to be >> virtualised, there's going to be lots of name space >> collisions. >> >> >> > Joe, > I can see the term 'realserver' becoming a problem. A lot of people are > going to think this is real hardware when it's not limited to just real > hardware. I think a better term might be 'actual server' or 'runserver' > or 'destination server' or 'target server' or 'pool server' > or anything that doesn't use > real/virtual. The virtualization world is pretty much defining the > meaning of real/virtual. The LVS world needs to adopt some other > language to describe where the target service lives. > > > Gerry > > _______________________________________________ > LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - [email protected] > Send requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users > >
_______________________________________________ LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - [email protected] Send requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
