|
On Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 03:19:19PM -0700, Jeremy Johnson wrote:
> Ya, LVS has performed for us like a champ.. under higher volumes, I have
> had some problems with wlc.... for some reason LVS freaks and starts
> binding all traffic to one box... or at least the majority of it.. it is
> really wierd... but as soon as you switch to using wrr then everything
> worked fine... I have been using LVS for about 4 months to manage our
> E-Commerce cluster and I haven't had any problems other than the wlc vs wrr
> problem...
May we quote you on that on the LVS site. One thing (to my mind) that LVS
is missing is testimonials. It would be really nice if when people say "Hey
is anyone actually using this, and what did they think" we could point them
to a URL with some people like youself talking (breifly) about their
experiences with using LVS in production.
> There is only one suggestion I would make, and that is to clean up rotating
> boxes into the cluster when using wlc.... I don't use wlc anymore but when
> I was, as soon as I rotated a new box into the cluster (we have around 900
> SSL sessions per machine on average) the new box got ALL the new traffic..
> and if you are using SSL, that is some serious key generation munching. I
> know I could do it my tweaking the weights to rotate it in gently.. but I
> am far to lazy..er I mean busy.
Perhaps the algorithm should look at the difference between the
number of connections on a given server and the mean (or median)
if this is more than a certain ammount, or percentage then
it won't receive all the connections, just a weighed ammount.
That way it should slowly come up to speed. Just a thought :)
--
Horms
|
