|
At 10:33 12/12/2000 +0100, you wrote:
On 2000-12-12T09:29:48,
Stephen Rowles <spr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
> This would seem like the best approach for my particular problem. My
> compute cluster does not deal with a high connection rate, but with fewer
> long term connections. A best effort (possibly just UDP type packets)
> transmission of the connections to the failover director would probably be
> sufficient. The idea would be to lose as few connections as possible, I
> think that losing one or two connections in the event of a failure
would be
> brilliant.
If your application can cope with losing one connection - which potentially
translates to a client being able with having to reconnect to the server - the
probability is high that you could cope with losing all connections and having
the client reconnect.
As my cluster is a compute cluster which load balances "long term" ssh /
telnet connections for people running "heavy" linux compute jobs, losing
one connection would mean that one user lost their connection (or only one
of their connections) which is preferable to all users losing all of their
connections - more a case of damage limitation, I'd rather have to deal
with one / two annoyed users as opposed to 50 odd!
Sincerely,
Lars Marowsky-Brée <lmb@xxxxxxx>
Development HA
--
Perfection is our goal, excellence will be tolerated. -- J. Yahl
_______________________________________________
LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
or go to http://www.in-addr.de/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
Steve.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than going to a garage
makes you a mechanic.
| 