Re: Virtual IP address for HAProxy

On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, Stephen More wrote:

> On 11/6/07, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, Ronan Kerambrun wrote:
>>> Stephen More a écrit :
>>>> Can anyone share any pros and cons on using keepalived vs ucarp ? Will
>>>> they both work with HAProxy ?
>>>
>>> I made some load-balancing clusters with haproxy and ucarp/carp without any
>>> problems, it works fine :)
>>> 1 haproxy as Master (active), the other as Backup..
>>
>> That is true, however IMHO there is no reason to use ucarp on Linux since
>> VRRP implementation provided by keepalived is simply better, more mature
>> and offers richer functionality.
>
> Thanks - Could expand on what extra functionality that keepalived has ?

It is like comparing vi and cat. ;) If we ignore the fact that keepalived can also provide IPVS managment functionality with tcp/http/ssl/smtp checks, then it delivers VRRP which is better than ucarp because:

• provides sync group functionality
• provides track script functionality
• can send emails with notifications itself
• supports floating priorities
• provides weighted interface tracking
• is able to add/remove ip addresses itself

Best regards,

                         Krzysztof Olêdzki Received on 2007/11/17 18:23