LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: [lvs-users] Understanding lb_algo and weighting.

To: Leon Pinkney <leon.pinkney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [lvs-users] Understanding lb_algo and weighting.
Cc: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:40:01 +1100
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 12:08:41PM +0100, Leon Pinkney wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>  
> 
> We are looking into ways to use LVS to better our current techniques.
> 
>  
> 
> I want to load balance http proxy across 3 boxes.  Users point at one of
> those 3 boxes.
> 
>  
> 
> ipvsadm -l
> 
> IP Virtual Server version 1.2.1 (size=4096)
> 
> Prot LocalAddress:Port Scheduler Flags
> 
>   -> RemoteAddress:Port           Forward Weight ActiveConn InActConn
> 
> TCP  10.10.10.51:webcache sh
> 
>   -> 172.16.254.1:webcache        Local   4      237        1669
> 
>   -> 172.16.254.2:webcache        Masq    10     246        1520
> 
>   -> 172.16.254.3:webcache        Masq    10     172        1675
> 
>  
> 
> Now my understanding was that sh would ensure each IP would always end
> up with all of it's requests going to one machine.
> 
>  
> 
> I expected the weighting would split each IP across the boxes, giving
> the first box less work to do.
> 
>  
> 
> Clearly my understanding appears to be wrong since the first box has the
> most connections, when I would expect it to have less than half of the
> other two.  Can someone enlighten me ?

Hi Leon,

other than a weight of 0, which means don't accept any now connections,
weights are currently ignored by the sh scheduler.


_______________________________________________
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

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