LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: Unwanted persistance

To: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, chris.williams@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Unwanted persistance
From: Joseph Mack <mack.joseph@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 08:23:14 -0400
Chris Williams wrote:
> 

> > keepalive is for maintaining an idle connection. The 2 minute timeout
> > is the FIN_WAIT for an InActConn to clear.

> The the thing is I'm only serving http, a connectionless protocol

http is stateless, but unlike some other stateless protocols (nfs, ntp)
requires a connection (ie uses tcp, rather than udp). http normally
disconnects quickly

http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/Joseph.Mack/HOWTO/LVS-HOWTO-9.html#ss9.19

so that you'll not normally see any entries in ActConn and from that point
of view, the connection is short and looks a little like udp.

However for http/1.1 the connection can be persistent 
(in the netscape sense, rather than persistent in the LVS sense)

http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/Joseph.Mack/HOWTO/LVS-HOWTO-9.html#ss9.20

The persistence is only for 15secs, which is still relatively short, but
you'll still have to wait for the FIN_WAIT period of about 2mins before the
InActConn entry will be cleared from the ipvsadm table.

> Would this still apply? ipvsadm shows no inactive or active connections
> (once the initial download has occured,) but the problem still occurs
> that once I pull a real server out of the cluster, ipvsadm shows it as
> being removed, but traffic still gets directed there for 2-5 minutes.

hmm, once the entries have cleared from ipvsadm (seen in ActConn and InActConn),
you're free to remove the realserver. Are you using ldirectord (which 
I don't know about) or something else that I don't understand here?
 
> Also I've just discovered that connecting from a different machine then
> the one doing load testing (a router unfortunetly, so not all together
> independant,) still gets sent to the dead real server.

something else is going on here. You haven't fiddled any timeouts have you?


> I'm starting to think that maybe I can live with a problem 2 minutes on
> server failure, but will struggle on for the moment.

you'll have to live with the FIN_WAIT timeout, but this isn't what's going on
here.

Joe

-- 
Joseph Mack PhD, Senior Systems Engineer, SAIC contractor 
to the National Environmental Supercomputer Center, 
mailto:mack.joseph@xxxxxxx ph# 919-541-0007, RTP, NC, USA


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