LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: Overloaded connection limit

To: "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list." <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Overloaded connection limit
From: Steve Hill <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 10:00:37 +0100 (BST)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004, Roberto Nibali wrote:

> What kernel are you talking about, I'm afraid? I've been a bit out of 
> the loop development wise, so bear with me. And 2.4.x and 2.6.x contain 
> similar (although not sync'd ... sigh) code regarding this feature:

Sorry, I should've said - 2.4.24.

> This is correct. I'm a bit unsure as to what your exact problem is, but 
> a kernel version would already help, although I believe you're using a 
> 2.4.x kernel. Normally the is_overloaded() function was designed to be 
> used by the threshold limitation feature only which is only present as a 
> shacky backport from 2.6.x. I don't quite understand the is_overloaded() 
> function in the ip_vs_dh scheduler, OTOH, I really haven't been using it 
> so far.


I have 3 squid servers and had set them all to a weight of 5 (since they 
are all identical machines and the docs said that the weights are 
relative to eachother).  What I found was that once there were >10 
concurrent connections any new hosts that tried to make a connection (i.e. 
any host that isn't "persisting") would have it's connection rejected 
outright.  After some reading through the code I discovered the 
is_overloaded condition, which was failing in the case of > 10 connections 
and so I have increased all the weights to 5000 (to all intents and 
purposes unlimited) which has solved the problem.

Oddly there is another LVS server with a similar configuration which isn't 
showing this behaviour, but I cannot find any significant difference in 
the configuration to account for it.

The primary use for LVS in this case is failover in the event of one of 
the servers failing, although load balancing is a good side effect.  I'm 
using ldirectord to monitor the real servers and adjusting the LVS 
settings in response to an outage.  At the moment, for some reason it 
doesn't seem to be doing any load balancing at the moment (something I am 
looking into) - it is just using a single server, although if that server 
is taken down it does fail over correctly to one of the other servers.

- - Steve Hill
Senior Software Developer                        Email: steve@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Navaho Technologies Ltd.                           Tel: +44-870-7034015

        ... Alcohol and calculus don't mix - Don't drink and derive! ...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Public key available at http://linux.navaho.co.uk/pubkey.steve.txt

iD8DBQFBD1Q5b26jEkrydY4RAkPyAJwIhTt33s8KCMyjOntTGhEBl9JcBwCg2Oio
J+f8S8UbopTdWaGXaFSbqI0=
=fnQK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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