|
> Well you understand the problem.
>
> There has been comments by people dealing
> with this problem (not many), but they seem to be still able to use LVS.
> We don't hear of anyone who is having lots of trouble with this,
> but it could be because no-one on this
> list is dealing with AOL as a large slice of their work.
>
>
Thanks for the reply
AOL is actually not a large slice of our work ... but we need to support
most of the people on the internet , including AOL and anyone else who might
be doing proxying ...
>
> > I've checked the mailing list and persistence paper, and it seems the
> thing
> > to do is to adjust the persistence granularity . However , if I adjust
> the
> > netmask, all of our internal network traffic will go to one server ,
> which
> > kind of defeats the purpose.
>
> if 1/3 of your customers are from AOL you could sacrifice one server to
> them,
> but it's not ideal. If all your customers are from AOL, I'd say we can't
> help
> you at the moment.
>
>
My concern with that would be anyone else doing proxying ... now or in the
future . I would not be opposed to routing all of the AOL customers to one
server for now though . I guess we could have to deal with each case of
proxying individually. I wonder how many other ISP's do proxying like that
...
> how many different proxy IPs do AOL customers arrive on the internet from?
> How many will appear from multiple IP's in the same session and how big
> is the subnet they come from? (/24?)
>
Good question , I'm not sure about that one. The customer that reported the
problem seemed to be coming from about 2-4 different IP addresses ( for the
same session ) .
> If AOL customers come from at least 3 of these subnets and you have 3
> servers,
> then you can use LVS as a balancer.
>
> Joe
>
>
Thanks
Billy
|
