Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+RFC\]\s+ipvs\:\s+reschedule\s+new\s+connections\s+if\s+previous\s+was\s+on\s+FIN_WAIT\s+or\s+TIME

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+RFC\]\s+ipvs\:\s+reschedule\s+new\s+connections\s+if\s+previous\s+was\s+on\s+FIN_WAIT\s+or\s+TIME_WAIT\s*$/: 16 ]

Total 16 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [PATCH RFC] ipvs: reschedule new connections if previous was on FIN_WAIT or TIME_WAIT (score: 1): Author: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <mleitner@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 10:35:37 -0200; Hi, Hello, if (!(flags & IP_VS_CONN_F_TEMPLATE)) { cp = ip_vs_conn_in_get(param); if (cp && ((cp->dport != dport) || !ip_vs_addr_equal(cp->daf, &cp->daddr, daddr))) { if (!(flags & IP_VS_CONN_F_INACT; /html/lvs-devel/2015-01/msg00007.html (12,482 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH RFC] ipvs: reschedule new connections if previous was on FIN_WAIT or TIME_WAIT (score: 1): Author: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 21:31:33 +0200 (EET); Hello, Yes, that was my worry but I don't see how the code can fail, so it looks fine to me. Regards -- Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-d; /html/lvs-devel/2015-01/msg00006.html (11,835 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH RFC] ipvs: reschedule new connections if previous was on FIN_WAIT or TIME_WAIT (score: 1): Author: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <mleitner@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 13:52:24 -0200; Hi, Hello, I guess, we here try to avoid old sync message to expire new connection. The problem is that UDP conns and templates are always IP_VS_CONN_F_INACTIVE, may be a TCP+SCTP protocol check is n; /html/lvs-devel/2015-01/msg00005.html (12,455 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH RFC] ipvs: reschedule new connections if previous was on FIN_WAIT or TIME_WAIT (score: 1): Author: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 23:06:07 +0200 (EET); Hello, OK, just make sure patch has short lines (80): I assume we will not stop here sync for some connection that was normally expired in master but was delayed in backup. TCP sync starts for EST st; /html/lvs-devel/2015-01/msg00004.html (12,030 bytes)
5. Re: [PATCH RFC] ipvs: reschedule new connections if previous was on FIN_WAIT or TIME_WAIT (score: 1): Author: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <mleitner@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 10:12:20 -0200; Hi, Hello, What if we make the backup server purge the old entry, just like the active server does, and ignore old updates if needed? Please note the new hunk on ip_vs_sync.c. This is the patch I'm u; /html/lvs-devel/2015-01/msg00001.html (18,568 bytes)
6. Re: [PATCH RFC] ipvs: reschedule new connections if previous was on FIN_WAIT or TIME_WAIT (score: 1): Author: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 00:26:14 +0200 (EET); Hello, Good idea If we want SCTP support may be we have to check our IP_VS_TCP_S_TIME_WAIT state. But cp->state checks should be per protocol, eg: /* Controlled (FTP DATA or persistence)? */ if (cp->; /html/lvs-devel/2015-01/msg00000.html (15,555 bytes)
7. Re: [PATCH RFC] ipvs: reschedule new connections if previous was on FIN_WAIT or TIME_WAIT (score: 1): Author: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <mleitner@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 17:49:01 -0200; Hi Julian, What if we make the backup server purge the old entry, just like the active server does, and ignore old updates if needed? Please note the new hunk on ip_vs_sync.c. This is the patch I'm u; /html/lvs-devel/2014-12/msg00040.html (26,017 bytes)
8. Re: [PATCH RFC] ipvs: reschedule new connections if previous was on FIN_WAIT or TIME_WAIT (score: 1): Author: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <mleitner@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 09:58:21 -0200; Hi, Hello, int conn_reuse_mode; conn_reuse_mode = sysctl_conn_reuse_mode(ipvs); if (conn_reuse_mode && !iph.fragoffs && is_new_conn(skb, &iph) && cp && ... unlikely(is_new_conn_expected(cp, conn_reus; /html/lvs-devel/2014-12/msg00034.html (16,486 bytes)
9. Re: [PATCH RFC] ipvs: reschedule new connections if previous was on FIN_WAIT or TIME_WAIT (score: 1): Author: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 00:39:34 +0200 (EET); Hello, I think, the cp->n_control check is not needed, we can live with many connections... in master server. But it looks like the new mechanism opens the door for problems with the sync protocol. T; /html/lvs-devel/2014-12/msg00033.html (15,392 bytes)
10. Re: [PATCH RFC] ipvs: reschedule new connections if previous was on FIN_WAIT or TIME_WAIT (score: 1): Author: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <mleitner@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 10:44:31 -0200; Hello, return (cp->state == IP_VS_TCP_S_TIME_WAIT) || (cp->state == IP_VS_TCP_S_FIN_WAIT && (cp->flags & IP_VS_CONN_F_NOOUTPUT) && time_after_eq(jiffies + cp->timeout, cp->timer.expires + 1 * HZ)); I; /html/lvs-devel/2014-12/msg00031.html (15,601 bytes)
11. Re: [PATCH RFC] ipvs: reschedule new connections if previous was on FIN_WAIT or TIME_WAIT (score: 1): Author: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 23:27:47 +0200 (EET); Hello, Yes, for IPVS-NAT TIME_WAIT means both sides closed. Agreed, a sysctl var is ok. Only that my preference is to have sysctl var that is checked even before is_new_conn() call to save some CPU c; /html/lvs-devel/2014-12/msg00029.html (13,961 bytes)
12. Re: [PATCH RFC] ipvs: reschedule new connections if previous was on FIN_WAIT or TIME_WAIT (score: 1): Author: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <mleitner@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:56:28 -0200; Hello, Signed-off-by: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <mleitner@xxxxxxxxxx> -- Notes: Hi, We have a report that not doing so may cause poor load balacing if applications reuse src port. With a patch like thi; /html/lvs-devel/2014-12/msg00028.html (15,746 bytes)
13. Re: [PATCH RFC] ipvs: reschedule new connections if previous was on FIN_WAIT or TIME_WAIT (score: 1): Author: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <mleitner@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:34:18 -0200; Hello, Signed-off-by: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <mleitner@xxxxxxxxxx> -- Notes: Hi, We have a report that not doing so may cause poor load balacing if applications reuse src port. With a patch like thi; /html/lvs-devel/2014-12/msg00027.html (16,977 bytes)
14. Re: [PATCH RFC] ipvs: reschedule new connections if previous was on FIN_WAIT or TIME_WAIT (score: 1): Author: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 01:37:32 +0200 (EET); Hello, People complained about UDP, such as RADIUS, etc. I guess, for TCP it is some local client that can benefit from balancing, it can be also a local testing tool. I think, checking of SEQ will n; /html/lvs-devel/2014-12/msg00023.html (14,015 bytes)
15. Re: [PATCH RFC] ipvs: reschedule new connections if previous was on FIN_WAIT or TIME_WAIT (score: 1): Author: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <mleitner@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 12:29:10 -0200; (I'll repost if the idea is accepted, this one is just for discussion) Notes: Hi, We have a report that not doing so may cause poor load balacing if applications reuse src port. With a patch like thi; /html/lvs-devel/2014-12/msg00017.html (11,156 bytes)
16. [PATCH RFC] ipvs: reschedule new connections if previous was on FIN_WAIT or TIME_WAIT (score: 1): Author: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <mleitner@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 12:27:02 -0200; Signed-off-by: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <mleitner@xxxxxxxxxx> -- Notes: Hi, We have a report that not doing so may cause poor load balacing if applications reuse src port. With a patch like this, it w; /html/lvs-devel/2014-12/msg00016.html (11,546 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 16
Page: [1]