|
Here is the output from ipvsadm -ln. At the time it was taken only 4
boxes were recieving traffic (172.18.2.23, 172.18.2.18, 172.18.2.13,
172.18.2.8) and one had just fallen out of favor (172.18.2.3). As I
stated earlier all recieve traffic to start then one by one they are
"disowned" and go quiet till there is just one left recieving traffic.
[root@lb /root]# ipvsadm -ln
IP Virtual Server version 0.2.8 (size=4096)
Prot LocalAddress:Port Scheduler Flags
-> RemoteAddress:Port Forward Weight ActiveConn
InActConn
TCP 172.19.0.6:25 lc
-> 172.18.2.23:25 Masq 1 -45 448
-> 172.18.2.18:25 Masq 1 -48 518
-> 172.18.2.17:25 Masq 1 -10 10
-> 172.18.2.15:25 Masq 1 -1 1
-> 172.18.2.14:25 Masq 1 -12 12
-> 172.18.2.13:25 Masq 1 -46 449
-> 172.18.2.12:25 Masq 1 -1 1
-> 172.18.2.11:25 Masq 1 -3 3
-> 172.18.2.9:25 Masq 1 0 0
-> 172.18.2.8:25 Masq 1 -50 558
-> 172.18.2.7:25 Masq 1 -4 4
-> 172.18.2.6:25 Masq 1 -9 9
-> 172.18.2.5:25 Masq 1 -3 3
-> 172.18.2.4:25 Masq 1 -5 5
-> 172.18.2.3:25 Masq 1 -31 31
I also took time to test with a non-smp kernel and everything works
great. All servers get traffic and all keep getting traffic for the
short (many hour) test I did. The output of ipvsadm -ln was a little
different so I decided to paste it below.
[root@lb /root]# ipvsadm -ln
IP Virtual Server version 0.2.8 (size=4096)
Prot LocalAddress:Port Scheduler Flags
-> RemoteAddress:Port Forward Weight ActiveConn
InActConn
TCP 172.19.0.6:25 lc
-> 172.18.2.23:25 Masq 1 0 175
-> 172.18.2.18:25 Masq 1 0 174
-> 172.18.2.17:25 Masq 1 1 134
-> 172.18.2.15:25 Masq 1 0 181
-> 172.18.2.14:25 Masq 1 0 166
-> 172.18.2.13:25 Masq 1 1 165
-> 172.18.2.12:25 Masq 1 0 170
-> 172.18.2.11:25 Masq 1 1 162
-> 172.18.2.9:25 Masq 1 2 163
-> 172.18.2.8:25 Masq 1 0 169
-> 172.18.2.7:25 Masq 1 0 169
-> 172.18.2.6:25 Masq 1 0 187
-> 172.18.2.5:25 Masq 1 0 178
-> 172.18.2.4:25 Masq 1 2 130
-> 172.18.2.3:25 Masq 1 1 164
This one looks better
-Jason
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 09:52:46AM +0800, Wensong Zhang wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> So, you still have the problem of many real servers won't be scheduled in
> the least-connection scheduling?
>
> I don't know it is related to the kernel. Do you use any user-space
> program to monitor real server and adapt its weight? please execute
> "ipvsadm -ln" to list the IPVS table and see if there is real server that
> has weight zero, when some servers are not used in the scheduling.
>
> Thanks for the help in testing the patch.
>
> Wensong
|
