|
Sorry for the late reply, but here it goes:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roberto Nibali" <ratz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list."
<lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: binding 2 persistence rules/routes...
> > No matter what persistency rules I setup here, as I have 2 different
ports
> > (80 and xxx) I see no way to say
> > "when user interacts with server, set persistency rule for yyy time that
> > maps user:80 to node1:80 AND ALSO user:whatever to node1:xxx"
>
> set up a service with port 0.
>
No, that will not work for me... I think you've misread my question:
If I do it your way I'll have "any" port redirected to my realservers.
Nothing keeps my client from getting to RS1 with the http request, and then
go to RS2 with the 2nd (not http request)... Or is it me that I'm failing to
understand this?
> > Besides that, I also have another question: That service that is
listening
> > in the server node will then give the connection to another instance,
that
> > will control the connection from there on (there is a pool of instances
> > waiting to take over).
>
> What part of J2EE are we talking about? Besides if you have good contact
> to some J2EE developer I'd be interested in getting it because the
> bloody ServerSocketImpl is broken as hell under Linux. Did they ever
> test the stuff with a packet filter?
>
Well, most of the development is being done in windows, altough it's suposed
to be run over Linux..
And, I must say, the developer I'm working with is not that expert... he's
learning J2EE with this project..
As far as I understood, he created a thread running in the servlet container
that listens in a port... but I've not seen the code and don't know the
details (for now, at least)... Hey, maybe latest sdk has some bug fixes in
that area?
> > Will lvs route those connections, that it doesnt even know of?
>
> No, not if they don't match the service template criteria. Port 0 will
> take care of it.
>
Yes, but... it'll be "unmatched" with the http requests from the same
client... What I mean is that the connection with a different port will be
tought of a totally unrelated connection..
Unless.. hmmm.. does the setup with port 0 makes the same thing as explained
in "persistency granularity" howto section? But with ports instead of
client netmasks?
Anyway, every client within a specific IP will be directed to one RS... as
it happen when you have a ISP proxy...
> > I'm not sure, but this mechanism seems something similar to a
passive-ftp
> > connection...
>
> Yes, we could probably also develop a helper function but we would need
> to know how exactly you're using the API.
I see.. a kernel-level matching mechanism, as there is one for ftp... Well,
I'm not even sure the developer who wrote this protocol can explain it to
the remaining team, so I think I'll need a brute-force approach to the
problem...
> > Maybe someone know a lvs-friendly tip to make things work. Btw, this
applet
> > and the connection is used to allow
> > server->browser communication without using http refresh/pooling.
>
> Sick :)
>
> Cheers,
> Roberto Nibali, ratz
Thank you Roberto for your reply and I'm sorry for the delay
Joao Clemente
Inesc-ID - Portugal
|
