Re: Persistence & Cache clusters

To: Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Persistence & Cache clusters
Cc: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Wensong Zhang <wensong@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 22:18:18 +0800

Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> Good morning,
> I encountered a "nice" feature of cache clusters at a major German ISP,
> notably "T-Online". Their cache clusters appear to not do persistence, which
> means that a user may get directed to multiple proxies during a single session
> ...
> The effect: During a single session, the user may appear to be comeing from
> multiple source IPs, effectively running "persistence port" useless *sigh*
> The "solution": Either we manage to sell T-Online a Linux VirtualServer which
> would support proper persistence (though highly desireable, this is rather
> unlikely;) or I hack the LVS code to accept a netmask for the persistent port.
> The code would iph->saddr & netmask whenever referring to the templates, thus
> you could specify that you want to group all clients from the same /28 /24 or
> whatever to the same real server.

I don't think there is a need to use the netmask to select the proxy
For a dialing up session, the dynamically allocated IP address won't be
changed in a single session. The current persistent port feature of LVS
keep the connections from the same client assigned to the same server
that is allocated for the first connection. It will make all proxy
go to the same proxy server.

The static partition method (iph->saddr & netmask) is really not
which will make the load imbalance worse among the proxy servers.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lvs-users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: lvs-users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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