|
On 1999-11-24T11:27:49,
Patrick Kormann <pkormann@xxxxxxxxxxx> said:
> The hint about the /all/arp_invisible worked great, thanks.
> One feature I'm missing in the lvs-project. Wouldn't it be nice to have a
> switch that would tell ipvsadm 'If one of the realservers is
> unreachable/connection refused, take it out of the list of real servers for
> x seconds' or even 'check the availability of that server every x seconds,
> if it's not available, take it out of the list, if it's available again, put
> it in the list'.
That does not belong in the kernel. This is definetely the job of a userlevel
monitoring tool.
I admit it would be nice if the LVS patch could check if connections directed
to the realserver were refused and would log that to userlevel though, so we
could have even more input available for the monitoring process.
> and quirks to make lvs a real high-availability system. The problem is that
> all those external checks are never as effective as a decition be the
> 'virtual server' could be.
That's wrong.
A userlevel tool can check reply times, request specific URLs from the servers
to check if they reply with the expected data, gather load data from the real
servers etc. This functionality is way beyond kernel level code.
Sincerely,
Lars Marowsky-Brée
--
Lars Marowsky-Brée
Network Management
teuto.net Netzdienste GmbH
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lvs-users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: lvs-users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
