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*: *
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:50 AM Abhijeet Rastogi <abhijeet.1989@xxxxxxxxx>
> 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
> - 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!
> Abhijeet (https://abhi.host)
Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at:
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