|
Hello,
> [root@cluster root]# uname -r
> 2.4.7-10
Ok, this might be ok if you use piranha. But then you have to address
the problem in the piranha mailinglist. Here we provide help for plain
vanilla kernel and setup using the provided tools from the LVS package.
> [root@cluster root]# ipvsadm -Ln IP Virtual Server version 0.8.1
> (size=65536) Prot LocalAddress:Port Scheduler Flags ->
> RemoteAddress:Port Forward Weight ActiveConn InActConn TCP
> 172.22.48.212:80 lc -> 172.16.0.1:80 Local 80
> 0 0 -> 172.16.0.102:80 Masq 1 0
> 0 -> 172.16.0.101:80 Masq 2 0 0
And that's exactly why I asked you to show me the output. If you read
your output carefully and reread your first email, you might notice,
that you wanted to set the director's weight to 8 but you obviously set
it to 80! And thus your observation is absolutely correct and has to be
like that. If you want the balancing like you stated RS:RS:LB=1:1:8, you
have to set it up that way. Currently you run 1:1:80.
> Again, VIP=172.22.48.212, NAT LAN=172.16.0.0/24, 172.16.0.1=internal
> side of master director.
I see that now.
> I yesterday posted an update to my initial message. Actually, the
> problem wasn't from LVS/piranha, but from the config of apache on
> the master director which wasn't using keepalive http connections,
> wheres the two other realservers were.
I don't follow the piranha mailinglist. I'm glad your second problem has
been solved too.
> Problem solved !
I'm glad. But you mentioned two problems. I gave you the answer to the
first problem.
>> You use LVS_NAT for your RS and LVS_DR for your director maybe?
>>
>
> No no, see ipvsadm output above.
:) Well you sort of do ... but never mind.
> The full story about that, with nice outputs and drawings has been
> posted there yesterday.
I hope everything is solved. Best regards,
Roberto Nibali, ratz
|
