LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: Problem with SH scheduler and localnode feature

To: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Problem with SH scheduler and localnode feature
Cc: Ludovic Ishiomin <lishiomin@xxxxxxxxxx>
From: Rached Ben Mustapha <rached@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 15 May 2002 18:48:53 +0200
Hello,

Ludovic replied this (He isn't subscribed).

On 15-May-2002 Padraig Brady wrote:
> Rached Ben Mustapha wrote:
>> Hello all,
>> 
>> It seems there is a problem with the SH scheduler and local node feature.
>> I configured my LVS director (node-102) in direct routing mode on a 2.4.18
>> linux
>> kernel with ipvs 1.0.2. The realservers are set up accordingly.
>> 
>> root@node-102# ipvsadm --version
>> ipvsadm v1.20 2001/11/04 (compiled with popt and IPVS v1.0.2)
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> root@node-102# ipvsadm -Ln
>> IP Virtual Server version 1.0.2 (size=65536)
>> Prot LocalAddress:Port Scheduler Flags
>>   -> RemoteAddress:Port           Forward Weight ActiveConn InActConn
>> TCP  10.0.0.50:23 sh
>>   -> 127.0.0.1                    Route   1      0          0
>>   -> 192.168.32.103:23            Route   1      0          0        
>>   -> 192.168.32.101:23            Route   1      0          0
>> 
>> All new connections whatever the client's IP goes to the director.
>> 
> 
> Notice the Forwarding is "Route", it should say "local node" I think.
> What ipvsadm command did you use?
> 
> Local node only works reliably (I've found) when
> you specify the virtual address and SAME PORT.
> I.E. add 10.0.0.50:23 as a real service in your case.

Sorry, it was a very bad cut & paste.

Of course, you should have read

root@node-102# ipvsadm -Ln
IP Virtual Server version 1.0.2 (size=65536)
Prot LocalAddress:Port Scheduler Flags
   -> RemoteAddress:Port           Forward Weight ActiveConn InActConn
TCP  10.0.0.50:23 sh
   -> 127.0.0.1:23                 Local   1      0          0
   -> 192.168.32.103:23            Route   1      0          0         
   -> 192.168.32.101:23            Route   1      0          0

> 
> Padraig.
> 
> p.s. I've never tested this with direct routing so I may be wrong.

I would be surprised if the problem does not appear with NAT or TUN, I
will try later.

-- 
Rached Ben Mustapha



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>