openstack team mailing list archive

[Jesse Pretorius <jesse.pretorius@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 26 June 2013 15:42, Brent Roskos <brent.roskos@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I've also used keepalived for services that did not scale laterally.  In
> this case I put two horizon servers behind an active/passive virtual IP.
>  This was also pretty simple as there was no need to maintain state
> information in for active passive. That wouldn't work quite as well when
> capacity thresholds started to become a concern.
>
> Neither of the above required multicast support - which really helps with
> deployment options.
>

*ahem* keepalived most definitely requires multicast support for its
vrrp... and it's quite noisy. If there's a way to make it use unicast
instead, I'd definitely like to know.

corosync & pacemaker can do a virtual IP failover between as many nodes as
you like using unicast instead of multicast.