LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: [lvs-users] Understanding persistence_granularity for long TCP conne

To: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [lvs-users] Understanding persistence_granularity for long TCP connections and unexpected spread of traffic at reals
From: Abhijeet Rastogi <abhijeet.1989@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 13:19:41 -0700
Hi lvs-users,

Extremely sorry for the multiple emails, this email was stuck in the mail
queue probably because of moderation (just joined the ML) and I expected it
to get dropped so sent a different one.

Please ignore this email and look at another one, that has more clarity
with ipvsadm outputs*: *
http://lists.graemef.net/pipermail/lvs-users/2019-August/050685.html

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:50 AM Abhijeet Rastogi <abhijeet.1989@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm investigating a typical configuration for an L4 TCP load balancer
> using ipvs+keepalived. Settings:-
>
>    - persistence_timeout: 120 seconds.  (# LVS persistence timeout, sec)
>    - /sbin/ipvsadm --set 1800 120 300
>    - persistence_granularity: "48" for ipv6.
>    - lb_algo: rr (round robin)
>
> My expectation is, all the IPs from the same /48 v6 subnet should always
> reach the same real_server because of setting granularity.
>
> However, I can see that established connections from the same /48 v6
> subnet are spread across multiple reals. (with timeouts b/w 0 seconds to
> less than 30 minutes which is a side-affect of setting higher timeout for
> TCP).
>
> Questions:-
>
>    - After the persistent_timeout expires, do new connections from the
>    same /48 subnet get assigned to a new reals based on round-robin regardless
>    of whether we've existing connections already going to a specific real from
>    that subnet? (And this results in same /48 being distributed to multiple
>    reals eventually)
>    - Is TCP timeout the reason for the unexpected spread of same /48
>    clients to multiple reals (as opposed to the expectation of 1)?
>    - If my previous question's answer is yes, should we always set
>    persistence_timeout to be higher than the TCP timeout? (because of https
>    traffic, session ticket etc)
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Abhijeet (https://abhi.host)
>


-- 
Cheers,
Abhijeet (https://abhi.host)
_______________________________________________
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>