LVS and pound act in different ways, and on different levels of the TCP stack.
It all depends what you're trying to achieve as to which is most suitable for you. In our environment we use a failed over pair of hardware load balancers which balance traffic across a pair of squid caching servers which then load balance to a pair of pound servers. (see attachment) We use pound to send certain urls and virtual hosts off to a series of backend java applications. This is probably off topic now though ... Regards, Paul --- Paul Miles Systems and Infrastructure Fax: + 44 (0)8701 236 087 Web: http://www.paymo.com<http://www.paymo.com/> [cid:image001.png@01C9F32D.FC9A7A70] Paymo 107 Fleet Street London, EC4A 2AB UK From: Arnab Ganguly [mailto:agangul...@gmail.com] Sent: 22 June 2009 11:19 To: users@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: [us...@httpd] Apache as a Gateway Hi All, How is LVS http://kb.linuxvirtualserver.org/wiki/Load_balancer compared to Pound ?Which one would be better to use? Thanks Arnab On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Julien Gerhards <jgerha...@r-advertising.com<mailto:jgerha...@r-advertising.com>> wrote: Hi ! CentOS is 100% compatible with RHL !
<<inline: image001.png>>
<<attachment: HTTP_GET_cache_flow.jpg>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------- The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
