|
Hello,
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Joseph Mack wrote:
> So do we support two behaviours for fwmarks (CIP->VIP-RIP)
> and (CIP->fwmark->RIP) or do we just support one of them?
With this patch applyed the template is changed only to the
fwmark-based services. Then we have both kinds of templates in the
connection table. And they don't collide. But this feature uses the
fact the 0.0.0.0/8 network is not used and the fwmarks are in the
range of 1 - 2^24-1. If the fwmark is not in this range these templates
can collide with the normal VIP templates.
> Are people expecting the original behaviour now
> or are they not aware of the choices?
I assume nobody tried such setups. May be only Ted Pavlic?
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-virtual-server&m=96542157330362&w=2
> I don't want to break anyone's setup, but it seems to
> me that we have to support the CIP-fwmark-RIP setup
> or most of the advantages of fwmarks are gone
Yes, the persistence for fwmark-based services covers all ports
to one VIP and this is a problem. This is the reason the above feature
to help for such setups. But for now we don't see more problems with
the feature enabled except the load imbalance. But that depends on
the used scheduling and the cluster software too. And this feature
clearly isolates the traffic when some of the fwmark-based services
share same Virtual Addresses (with different ports) but with different
real servers where the problem can be visible (traffic sent to the
wrong virtual service hits innocent real server).
So, may be it is a time we to discuss it again. Cons/Pros?
> Joe
>
> --
> Joseph Mack PhD, Senior Systems Engineer, Lockheed Martin
> contractor to the National Environmental Supercomputer Center,
> mailto:mack.joseph@xxxxxxx ph# 919-541-0007, RTP, NC, USA
Regards
--
Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
|
