|
On Tuesday 01 April 2008 14:55:58 Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 April 2008 14:16:41 Simon Horman wrote:
> > I think that the reasoning is that there is some expense related to
> > inactive connections, though its probably only in terms of memory
> > or possibly scheduler (thus CPU) being taken up, and its probably
> > a lot less than 1/256th of the cost associated with a live connection.
>
> This is the main reason why I kept the inactconns check as a secondary
> decision. The number of inactive connections should still stay fairly well
> balanced. If the number of inactive connections on a more powerful server
> is high enough that it starts affecting performance, lesser servers should
> start getting more requests causing things to even out again.
>
> > I like your patch, but I wonder if it might be better to make this
> > configurable. Perhaps two values, multiplier for active and multiplier
> > for inactive, which would be 256 and 1 by default. Setting such
> > a configuration to 1 and 0 would achieve what you are after without
> > changing the default behaviour.
>
> The request distribution should be nearly identical in the case of real
> servers of equal specs. I guess I should brush off my mathematics and
> calculate what the difference is in the various other cases. ;)
My mathematics was never really that good that I can just brush it off. ;)
Instead, I wrote a little simulation (attached) that compares behaviours.
The unbracketed figures below are values at the end of the run, the bracketed
figures below are peak values during the run and T is the total number of
connections sent to that server.
With 1000reqs/sec and two servers where #1 can handle 20% more requests:
Current LC
1: A 21(23) I 30567(30618) T 153040
2: A 24(26) I 29388(29595) T 146960
Patched LC
1: A 22(22) I 32978(32979) T 164998
2: A 23(23) I 26977(26980) T 135002
With 1000reqs/sec and two servers where #1 can handle 400% more requests:
Current LC
1: A 5(11) I 32352(32546) T 162414
2: A 24(26) I 27619(28344) T 137586
Patched LC
1: A 9(10) I 49191(49195) T 245998
2: A 9(10) I 10791(10793) T 54002
Looking at these figures, the only real problem would be the extra number of
inactive connections on the faster server. However, after thinking about
adding server weights to the equation, I'm wondering if this would not be
better as yet-another-scheduler? I don't really like the idea of adding extra
configuration as it steps away from LVS's current simplicity, but the
difference in behaviour compared to the WLC scheduler is too great to be able
to merge as is... Would yet-another-scheduler be accepted?
--
Jason Stubbs <j.stubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
LINKTHINK INC.
東京都渋谷区桜ヶ丘町22-14 N.E.S S棟 3F
TEL 03-5728-4772 FAX 03-5728-4773
lvslctest.cpp
Description: Text Data
|
