|
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 04:37:16PM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Roberto Nibali wrote:
>
> > Again, Julian, it is not compulsory. You can choose to have or
> > not have this feature at compilation time. I can also write a
> > text about the security implications so people selecting this
> > feature are aware of the problems. Since I use LVS a bit in a
> > different framework as other people, this patch has helped me
> > fulfilling highly important SLA's with customers which in turn
> > (if the feature wouldn't have been present) would have chosen
> > a commercial, proprietary solution.
For what it is worth, I think that this feature is a good one to have.
One thing that makes it easier to get people to deploy LVS instead of a
competing solution is to be able to match the features of those
solutions. In my opinion, the more "checkboxes" that we can tick off the
more people are going to think seriously about deploying LVS. This can
only be good for the project.
In the case of connection limit thresholds, it seems to me that this
could be a useful solution in some situations - even given the
limitations of Ratz's current implementation with relation to the
weights of real servers being changed externally. Perhaps there are
security implications, though I am not entirely convinced of this. In
any case the dangers of using an individual feature can be documented,
and it is up to the user to decide if a feature is appropriate for their
deployment or not.
--
Horms
|
