|
Simon,
Thanks for the reply. Using sh is important to mee, since I'd like to
keep a users session through one box only, it makes logs easier to
correlate.
Is there a way I can achieve the above, and have differently weighted
real servers ?
Thanks,
Leon
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Horman [mailto:horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 14 October 2009 00:40
To: Leon Pinkney
Cc: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [lvs-users] Understanding lb_algo and weighting.
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
|
