|
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 01:22:39PM +0200, Kettler, Holger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I recently posted my experience with persistence and the strange
> behaviour
> of lvs to assign new connections to a 'busy' server although there might
>
> have been servers with no connection at all.
>
> Maybe this is not a bug but rather a timing problem. I noticed an
> optimal
> sharing of all rservers if all connections came in shortly. Refering to
> this I have some questions:
>
> If (the only) connection timed out (TCP_WAIT==0), the server is handled
> as 'free' and may get the next incoming request, even if there exists an
> (active) persistence-template (involving this server)?
>
> The point is, if the expired client decides to go on, it will get the
> same
> rserver as before for persistance reasons. This rserver is overloaded in
> proportion to all others, because of the new connection AND the pers.
> one.
Rats and I were working on some code which may resolv this.
Unfortunately it isn't finished and neither of us have
much time at the moment.
--
Horms
|
