Re: problem/feature query in ip_vs

To: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: problem/feature query in ip_vs
From: "John P . Looney" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:20:34 +0000
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 11:03:27AM +0100, Lars Marowsky-Bree mentioned:
> If the server doesn't send back a connection refused but silently doesn't
> reply (lets say, it was turned off), you will still need external monitoring
> (mon, ldirectord) to catch this - however, as nothing was send back to the
> client, it would still assume dropped packets and resend, resulting in the
> connection succeeding, albeit delayed.

 This is perfect. It should be assumed that failover is a non-frequent
occurance, so a non-optimal solution is preferred. 

 If ipvs tried to make a connection to the target server, that fails, so
it drops the reply. The client retries the connect. With standard round
robin, it'll go to the next server, and all will be fine. 

 But other algorithms will try send it to the same (dead) server, again
and again, and I'd be loathe to start playing with weights etc. Is it a
big job to have a test for "is the destinating server accepting packets"
for *each* and *every* packet ?


 When I say 'free', I mean 'free': free from bond, of chain or command: 
to go where you will, even to Mordor, Saruman, if you desire. " 
    -- Gandalf, paraphrasing the choice between Free and Non-free software

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>