LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: BUG or FEATURE? [ Re: ipvs-0.7 for kernel 2.2.10 released ]

To: Ted Pavlic <tpavlic_list@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: BUG or FEATURE? [ Re: ipvs-0.7 for kernel 2.2.10 released ]
Cc: Linux Virtual Server Mailing List <linux-virtualserver@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Wensong Zhang <wensong@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 11:13:17 +0800

Ted Pavlic wrote:
> 
> Is this a bug or a feature of the PCC scheduling...
> 

I don't know how to answer this. :-)

> A person connects to the virtual server, gets direct routed to a machine.
> Before the time set to expire persistent connections, that real machine
> dies. mon sees that the machine died, and deletes the real server entries
> until it comes back up.
> 
> But now that same person tries to connect to the virtual server again, and
> PCC *STILL* schedules them for the non-existent real server that is
> currently down. Is that a feature? I mean -- I can see how it would be good
> for small outages... so that a machine could come back up really quick and
> keep serving its old requests... YET... For long outages those particular
> people will have no luck.
> 

You can set the timeout of template masq entry into a small number now.
It will be expired soon.

Or, I will add some codes to let each real server entry keep a list of
its template masq entries, remove those template masq entries if the
real
server entry is deleted.

Thanks,

Wensong


> ? Bug or feature?
> 
> All the best --
> Ted
>



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>