Stephen, I don’t think the active/passive pools feature is referring to the HA of loadbalancers. This is about the ability to divide the list of members servicing load-balanced requests into 2 groups: The first one is active and the second one is passive (or a backup pool). If all the members in the first pool are down, then the passive pool’s members become serving traffic for that VIP.
Youcef From: Stephen Balukoff [mailto:sbaluk...@bluebox.net] Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 7:06 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Requirements Wiki Hi y'all! It's good to be back, eh! On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Eugene Nikanorov <enikano...@mirantis.com<mailto:enikano...@mirantis.com>> wrote: * Active/Passive Failover * I think this is solved with multiple pools. The multiple pools support that is coming with L7 rules is to support content-switching based on L7 HTTP information (URL, headers, etc.). There is no support today for an active vs. passive pool. I'm not sure that's the priority. It depends on if this is widely supported among vendors. A commercial load balancer that doesn't have high availability features? Is there really such a thing still being sold in 2014? ;) Also, Jorge-- thanks for creating that page! I've made a few additions to it as well that I'd love to see prioritized. Stephen -- Stephen Balukoff Blue Box Group, LLC (800)613-4305 x807
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
