|
Hi Joe,
On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 05:33:43AM -0700, Joseph Mack NA3T wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2 May 2009, Simon Horman wrote:
>
>> I'll double check, but I think the weight specifies a proportion
>> of conections rather than an absolute number. Could you let
>> me know which documentation you are looking at?
>
> it's the number of connections
>
> see section 4.10.2 of
>
> http://www.austintek.com/LVS/LVS-HOWTO/HOWTO/LVS-HOWTO.ipvsadm.html#SH-scheduler
That may have been the case in the past, but examining the code now
I don't see any evidence of weight = number of connections for the purpose
of calculating overload.
As far as I can see a real-server is only regarded as
being overloaded if the IP_VS_DEST_F_OVERLOAD flag is set.
And that flag only seems to be set in ip_vs_bind_dest()
where the criteria is that u-threshhold - as supplied
by ipvsadm - has been exceeded.
Specifically, I am looking at ip_vs_sh_schedule(), ip_vs_sh_get()
and is_overloaded() in net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sh.c in 2.6.30-rc4.
Caleb, are you observing that weight = number of connections?
If so, which kernel are you running?
> no-one used the -SH scheduler for years because no-one understood how to
> use it. I expect that weighting by the number of connections was probably
> the easiest to code up, but it's not particularly useful
I agree with your comments regarding utility.
If it is the case then I think it should be changed.
--
Simon Horman
VA Linux Systems Japan K.K. Satellite Lab in Sydney, Australia
H: www.vergenet.net/~horms/ W: www.valinux.co.jp/en
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|
