|
Doug Bagley wrote:
>
> But for me, this brings up a slightly different, but interesting
> question: are requests load balanced based on the VIP or the RIP?
> For instance for the "lc" algorithm, is the number of connections
> used in the algorithm the ones from the client to the VIP? or from
> the Director to a real server? Looking at the source, it looks like
> each service (VIP) has a list of real servers (destinations), and the
> active connection count is by each RIP in a VIP, not by RIP alone.
> That is, the active connections from one VIP are not counted in the
> active connections for any other VIP.
>
Yeah, your interception is right.
> It seems to me it would be useful in some cases to use the total number
> of connections to a real server in the load balancing calculation, in
> the case where the real server participates in servicing a number of
> different VIPs.
>
Yeah, it is true. Sometimes, we need tradeoff between
simplicity/performance and functionality. Let me think more about
this, and probably maximum connection scheduling together together
too. For a rather big server cluster, there may be a dedicated load
balancer for web traffic and another load balancer for mail traffic,
then the two load balancers may need exchange status periodically, it
is rather complicated.
Actually, I just thought that dynamic weight adaption according to
periodical load feedback of each server might solve all the above
problems.
Thanks,
Wensong
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lvs-users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: lvs-users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
