|
It looks like they're asking how to set the TCP timeout value persistently, as
opposed to a virtual service?
I apologies in advance for my ignorance of LVS. Let me give you my client's
inquiries in their own words, as I believe they explain it a bit clearer:
• Setting up a Piranha load balancer does not require direct interaction
with the ipvsadm command - all the configuration for setting up the ipvsadm
table is done automatically when configuring lvs.cf and starting pulse.
• Finding that a Piranha load balancer has a TCP timeout value that is
causing a conflict with our application, we wish to correct the issue by
modifying our Piranha load balancer config
• Piranha (via lvs.cf) appears to control all aspects of the ipvsadm table
- minus the timeout values that are affecting our application, which can be see
via ipvsadm --Ln --timeout
• It appears can workaround this issue manually after boot by setting the
timeout value via the ipvsadm command, and we can workaround this issue at boot
by setting up a fake /etc/sysconfig/ipvsadm config file that contains only a
single "--set x 0 0" configuration entry, and letting lvs.cf / pulse handle the
remainder of the LVS table based on the nanny healthchecks and whatnot -
however ipvsadm -S does not actually save timeout values (I suppose this is a
different bug / issue) into the file and therefore neither does "service
ipvsadm save"
It seems as though not having the control of the ipvsadm LVS table timeout
values from within Piranha / lvs.cf is broken, since someone admining one of
these load balancers doesn't otherwise need to directly touch the table
ourselves - I would expect Piranha to handle it. The rules themselves are not
traditionally configured via "ipvsadm" and "service ipvsadm save / restore /
stop / start" - they are via Piranha - so why do the /timeout/ values need to
be configured in this way?
Lastly, and this is largely out of scope, but the "ipvsadm -S" command should
ideally write out the "--timeout x y z" parameters to STDOUT so that those can
be saved / restored with everything else.
Can you please address the following questions:
1. Is adding --timeout values for ipvsadm within lvs.cf and/or being
controlled from Piranha something that should be added via feature request if
it does not exist today or is it something that should be fixed via bugzilla if
it does and isn't functioning properly?
2. Is adding --timeout values to be written from ipvsadm -S something that
should be added via feature request if it does not exist today or is it
something that should be fixed via bugzilla if it does and isn't functioning
properly?
Definitely correct this logic if invalid, but I responded to the client
regarding question #1 by stating that ipvsadm is designed to manage the IP
services, so I didn't believe it was feasible to duplicate this functionality
between the utilities. The second question is the one I'm a bit less clear on.
Thanks in advance for the assistance, btw! LVS cases are few and far between
for us here, so I don't find myself dusting off our LVS books very often...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Graeme Fowler" <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list."
<lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 8:22:43 AM
Subject: Re: [lvs-users] Is --timeout intended as non-persistent?
On Tue, 2011-07-26 at 14:08 -0400, Kendrick Gay wrote:
> I've been working with a client who notes that the only way to set --timeout
> persistently in Red Hat Enterprise Linux is to directly apply it to the
> /etc/sysconfig/ipvsadm file. A reboot seems to indicate that other parameters
> are retained. The ipvsadm -S output does not appear to include the timeout
> values.
>
> Is there a reason for this?
--timeout is an option for the "-L" switch and is informational only.
Persistence timeout is set using the "-p" switch, which *is* displayed
using "-S" (this one is using fwmarks rather than IP addresses):
[root@server ~]# ipvsadm -S
-A -f 5 -s rr -p 60
-a -f 5 -r localhost.localdomain:http -g -w 100
-a -f 5 -r other.machine.in.cluster:http -g -w 100
What is your client actually trying to achieve here?
Graeme
_______________________________________________
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
--
Kendrick Gay, RHCE
Global Support Services, TSE
Red Hat, Inc.
_______________________________________________
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
|
