|
Roberto Nibali wrote:
Hello Wensong,
How are you? I wanted to congratulate you to the 1.0.0 release. It's
been a long but wonderful path so far. I've attached a typo and
correction fix against ipvs-1.0.0. I've done it against 0.9.10 but it
cleanly applies to 1.0.0 too. I've already posted it to the list so I'm
not sure if you're too busy to parse the list or if you don't like the
patch [which actually wouldn't be the first time] :=)
I wish you all the best. Cheers,
Roberto Nibali, ratz
Grrrrr, forgot the patch! Sorry, second try.
Cheers,
Roberto Nibali, ratz
diff -ur ipvs-0.9.10/ipvs/Makefile ipvs-0.9.10a/ipvs/Makefile
--- ipvs-0.9.10/ipvs/Makefile Tue Feb 19 01:46:32 2002
+++ ipvs-0.9.10a/ipvs/Makefile Tue Feb 19 01:50:28 2002
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-# ipvs: IP Virtaul Server Module for NetFilter framework
+# ipvs: IP Virtual Server Module for NetFilter framework
# uncomment the following line on an SMP system
#SMPFLAGS= -D__SMP__
diff -ur ipvs-0.9.10/ipvs/ip_vs_wlc.c ipvs-0.9.10a/ipvs/ip_vs_wlc.c
--- ipvs-0.9.10/ipvs/ip_vs_wlc.c Fri Oct 19 17:05:17 2001
+++ ipvs-0.9.10a/ipvs/ip_vs_wlc.c Tue Feb 19 01:52:19 2002
@@ -67,9 +67,9 @@
/*
* We think the overhead of processing active connections is fifty
- * times than that of inactive conncetions in average. (This fifty
- * times might be not accurate, we will change it later.) We use
- * the following formula to estimate the overhead:
+ * times higher than that of inactive connections in average. (This
+ * fifty times might not be accurate, we will change it later.) We
+ * use the following formula to estimate the overhead:
* dest->activeconns*50 + dest->inactconns
* and the load:
* (dest overhead) / dest->weight
Only in ipvs-0.9.10a/ipvs: ip_vs_wlt.c
|
