|
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 04:12:10PM +0200, Christian Frost wrote:
> Simon Horman wrote:
[snip]
> > Assuming that I am correct I can think of two methods of addressing this
> > problem:
> >
> > 1) Simply change 256 to a smaller value. In this case 256 basically
> > ends up being the granularity of balancing for bursts of connections.
> > And in the case at hand, clearly 256 is too coarse. Perhaps 8, 2 or
> > even 1 would be a better value.
> >
> > This should be a trivial change to the code, and if lc is a module
> > you wouldn't even need to recompile the entire kernel - though you
> > would need to track down the original kernel source and config.
> >
> > The main drawback of this is that if you have a lot of old, actually
> > dead, connections in the inactive state, then it might cause imbalance.
> >
> > If that does help it might be good to consider making this parameter
> > configurable at run time, at least globally.
> >
> > 2) A more complex though arguably better approach would be to implement
> > some kind of slow start feature. That is, to assign some kind of weight
> > to new connections. I had a stab at this one in the past - it should
> > be in the archives - though I think my solution only addressed the
> > problem for active connections. But the idea seems reasonable
> > to extend to this problem.
> >
> >
> Hi,
>
> We tried method 1, which turned out to balance the connections
> perfectly. We multiplied with 1.
Thanks, that seems to back up my theory.
--
Simon Horman
VA Linux Systems Japan K.K. Satellite Lab in Sydney, Australia
H: www.vergenet.net/~horms/ W: www.valinux.co.jp/en
_______________________________________________
Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at:
http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/
LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
|
