Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[lvs\-users\]\s+Question\s+on\s+SH\s+scheduler\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[lvs\-users\]\s+Question\s+on\s+SH\s+scheduler\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [lvs-users] Question on SH scheduler (score: 1): Author: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 22:58:18 +0900; Yes, I think that is a good description of the difference between SH and persistence. _______________________________________________ Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at:; /html/lvs-users/2012-02/msg00047.html (11,021 bytes)
2. Re: [lvs-users] Question on SH scheduler (score: 1): Author: krishna prasad <krishna.sirigiri@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 18:21:18 +0530; Hi Simon, Thanks for the link; kind of understood the concept of persistence. I guess using this I can make sure that LVS dispatches the client re-connection to the same real server.But to determinis; /html/lvs-users/2012-02/msg00046.html (19,215 bytes)
3. Re: [lvs-users] Question on SH scheduler (score: 1): Author: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 18:35:49 +0900; The HOWTO has some information on this http://www.austintek.com/LVS/LVS-HOWTO/HOWTO/LVS-HOWTO.persistent_connection.html This ML archive also have various posts by myself and others on the topic. I a; /html/lvs-users/2012-02/msg00044.html (17,066 bytes)
4. Re: [lvs-users] Question on SH scheduler (score: 1): Author: krishna prasad <krishna.sirigiri@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 14:06:12 +0530; Hi Simon, Also, do you have any idea if some one already working on this kind of new schedule? _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Please r; /html/lvs-users/2012-02/msg00043.html (16,581 bytes)
5. Re: [lvs-users] Question on SH scheduler (score: 1): Author: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:12:46 +0900; Hi, I think that the scenario described above does make sense and that none of the existing schedulers cater to it. Although persistence could be used to achieve much if not all of the desired result; /html/lvs-users/2012-02/msg00042.html (14,836 bytes)
6. Re: [lvs-users] Question on SH scheduler (score: 1): Author: krishna prasad <krishna.sirigiri@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 11:36:11 +0530; Oh..did not notice this, this time I am including the ML group. _______________________________________________ Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at: http://www.linuxvirtu; /html/lvs-users/2012-02/msg00041.html (13,927 bytes)
7. Re: [lvs-users] Question on SH scheduler (score: 1): Author: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 13:54:19 +0900; I took a quick look this morning, and I don't think there is such a scheduler. FWIW, it should be easy enough to implement your idea by copying the SH scheduler and adding the port to the hash in the; /html/lvs-users/2012-02/msg00040.html (10,241 bytes)
8. Re: [lvs-users] Question on SH scheduler (score: 1): Author: Alexander Holler <holler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 05:34:38 +0100; Hello, Am 28.02.2012 04:26, schrieb krishna prasad: What should be the use case for this? Source ports are almost always choosen randomly, so you woould get the same results as balancing randomly. Re; /html/lvs-users/2012-02/msg00039.html (10,432 bytes)
9. Re: [lvs-users] Question on SH scheduler (score: 1): Author: krishna prasad <krishna.sirigiri@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 09:35:23 +0530; By the way, is there any other scheduler (other than SH) by which we can deterministically forward the client connections to the back end real servers? I mean connection from client1 should go to rea; /html/lvs-users/2012-02/msg00038.html (13,941 bytes)
10. Re: [lvs-users] Question on SH scheduler (score: 1): Author: krishna prasad <krishna.sirigiri@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:56:03 +0530; But I strongly think that it it good to have IP+port hashing, for cases where multiple clients run on single host, in this case the connections have same IP but different port. In this case also the; /html/lvs-users/2012-02/msg00037.html (12,302 bytes)
11. Re: [lvs-users] Question on SH scheduler (score: 1): Author: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 07:48:18 +0900; Yes, the SH scheduler only makes use of the source IP address and conversely the DH scheduler only makes use of the destination IP address. I believe that the motivation for the DH scheduler was for; /html/lvs-users/2012-02/msg00036.html (10,539 bytes)
12. Re: [lvs-users] Question on SH scheduler (score: 1): Author: Khosrow Ebrahimpour <khosrow.ebrahimpour@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:32:16 -0500; Hi Krishna, I haven't used SH scheduling myself, but according to this article http://kb.linuxvirtualserver.org/wiki/Source_Hashing_Scheduling only the source IP is used. Although I am curious why th; /html/lvs-users/2012-02/msg00035.html (9,308 bytes)
13. [lvs-users] Question on SH scheduler (score: 1): Author: krishna prasad <krishna.sirigiri@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:38:13 +0530; Dear All, If the director is configured with Source Hashing scheduling algorithm, the connections are distributed among the back end real servers through looking up a statically assigned hash table b; /html/lvs-users/2012-02/msg00034.html (8,565 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 13
Page: [1]