|
Hi Horms,
> Is there no persistency at all, or is the persistancy granularity
> 255.255.255.255? If there is 255.255.255.255 peristancy does
> changing the netmask for persistancy help? If you want all traffic
Yes, changing of the granularity worked, I just misconfigured that
previously and set up a stupid test environment. Now it works as
expected!
> for a specific network to be consistently be directed to the
> same host, perhaps you should consider setting up a virtual
> service for this that only has a single real server, this would
That was my initial thought, but you easily could run into hundreds
of VIPs which is ugly and not in the sense of loadbalancing.
> achieve this quite well. Perhaps I am missing the point.
No, you did not :)
> > And the second additional feature which
> > would be nice is, that one could specify multiple fwmarks as a group
> > acting as one service. Then one could specify pools of IPs. Example
> >
> With the exception of the group persistency behaviour that you suggest this
> can be achieved by marking each network with the _same_ fwmark.
Of course. The idea above is nonsense, I was just a little confused
with my testenvironment.
>
> I think that what you want, a method of specifying variable persistancy
> netmasks for a service is plausible, but I wonder how usful it would be.
> Grouping addresses together has problems of its own - all traffic
> from that group of addresses will be seint to a single host, egardless
> of how many clients there actually are.
I think I can handle my wishes with the current lvs-patch. I don't
actually
need variable persistency. I just take the mask with the highest
SubnetID
and set this as overall granularity for the pool of equally fwmarked
entities.
And if I there is a IP/NET-pool with lots of different SubnetIDs I will
split them into different groups with different fwmarks. So members in
the
same group will have more or less the same SubnetID. f.e:
POOL:
192.168.100.0/24 (1)
192.168.10.0/27 (2)
172.23.1.0/26 (3)
188.10.199.0/25 (4)
172.22.16.128/28 (5)
195.186.20.32/27 (6)
92.24.10.0/24 (7)
Group1: fwmark=1, p_mask=255.255.255.192
members: 2, 3, 5, 6
Group2: fwmark=2, p_mask=255.255.255.0
members: 1, 4, 7
After ipchaining and some ipvsadm -A|-a
ipvsadm -L -n would print:
IP Virtual Server version 0.9.12 (size=4096)
Prot LocalAddress:Port Scheduler Flags
-> RemoteAddress:Port Forward Weight ActiveConn InActConn
TCP 192.168.100.100:0 wrr persistent 200 mask 255.255.255.255
-> 192.168.100.11:0 Route 1 0 0
-> 192.168.100.10:0 Route 1 0 0
FWM 1 wrr persistent 200 mask 255.255.255.192
-> 192.168.100.11:0 Route 1 0 0
-> 192.168.100.10:0 Route 1 0 0
FWM 2 wrr persistent 200 mask 255.255.255.0
-> 192.168.100.11:0 Route 1 0 0
-> 192.168.100.10:0 Route 1 0 0
Better than nothing and close to what I initially wanted to
achieve.
Regards,
Roberto Nibali, ratz
|
