LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: Apache 2.0.53 gone nuts on ldirectord

To: "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list." <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Apache 2.0.53 gone nuts on ldirectord
From: Bosco Lau <bosco@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 15:18:47 +0800
I will give 'connect' a try, but I wonder even if 'connect' works, it is still not the 'perfect' solution.... maybe it is more to do with the Apache2 rather than the ldirectord, or is the ldirectord using of the Perl commands to request the apache causing problems?

Thanx

Bosco

Horms wrote:

On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 02:35:44PM +0800, Bosco Lau wrote:
I have been using Apache 1.3.xx under Ultra Monkey HA/Load balancing package (load balancing thru NAT). Everything seems to work perfectly fine... Until I upgraded to Apache 2.0.53 (prefork). Seems that the 'pinging' by the ldirectord is causing problems to the Apache2 server. But the even stranger thing is that when I connect directly to the Apache2 server without going through the load balancer everything seems to be fine (I have even tested it with some stress benchmarking).

I have tested the following conditions:
Apache 1.3 without LB (load balancing) - OK
Apache 1.3 with LB - OK
Apache 2.0.53 without LB - OK !!!
Apache 2.0.53 with LB - absolutely NUTS !!!

I suspect that Apache2 is reacting strangely to the negotiating/request by the ldirectord, which requests and reads a test file from the apache2 document root and try to compare the content of the test file to that in the config file of the ldirectord. But there isn't such a problem with Apache 1.3. At the moment the ldirectord is configured to make a request to the apache every 1 sec (which is not a high loading at all). My hunch is something to the with the Apache2 configuration of the multi-threading (???). Maybe the threads from the 'pings' are killing the server?

Please advise in anything I can do to the Apache2 or the ldirectord configuration, or anything else for that matter.

That sounds really weird. Could you try using a connect check
rather than a negotiate check and see if that makes any difference.



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