Persistence vs SH scheduler

To: " users mailing list." <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Persistence vs SH scheduler
From: Martijn Grendelman <martijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 11:49:46 +0200

I was justing browsing the HOWTO, when I stumbled upon this recent piece of text:

Apr 2006: No-one has tried this, but it seems that the -SH scheduler could replace persistence without the failover problems of persistence. The -SH scheduler schedules according to the client IP, meaning that all of a client's connection requests will be sent to the same IP. The -SH scheduler has been around for a while, but it seems that no-one has known what it did.

When I first started to toy around with LVS, I did just what is written here: i tried to use the SH scheduler for "session affinity" at L7.

However, I had problems, that I posted to this list:

I never found a solution, and I finally decided that SH wasn't going to work, and I set up an Msession server for "session clustering" and used the RR scheduler. This setup works perfectly and is still in use today.

However, since Msession is hopelessly outdated, and its successor (Mcache) doesn't seem to get off the ground, and I haven't found any workable (open source) alternatives, I would really like have another look at LVS persistence of some sort.

The question is: has anything changed in the SH scheduler in the past two years, that could possibly have fixed the problems I ran into? I suspect, since only No-one has tried using it, there's not a big chance of that ;-)

Any thoughts?

Other suggestions, for example other session clustering solutions that are worth looking at, ar also welcome.

Best Regards,


a.k.a Martijn Grendelman

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