|
Yes, Active Monitoring is always better...
-----Original Message-----
From: lvs-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:lvs-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Samuel
Tran
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 9:56 PM
To: LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list.
Subject: Re: Choosing the appropriate scheduling method, general
questions
Jeremy Kerr wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>
>
>>I tried contacting the maintiner of keepalived to see if there would
>>be an interest in integrating feedbackd (NECP) support into
>>keepalived. Never got a response. I don't want to work on something
>>that would never be accepted into keepalived proper. Passive
>>monitoring is nice, but active would be better.
>>
>>So, I'll ask it: would any of you want to see NECP support added to
>>keepalived?
>>
>>
>
>There were discussions along these lines a while ago - we decided that
>it would be the right thing to do, but was put "on the back-burner", as
>there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of interest.
>
>What do you guys think? Is there renewed interest in active load
>monitoring?
>
>Also, I've moved the feebackd page - it's now at:
>
> http://ozlabs.org/~jk/projects/feedbackd/
>
>The redfish one will still work, but won't be as up-to-date.
>
>
Jeremy,
I would be really glad if feedbackd was integrated into keepalived.
I've been using keepalived and feedbackd on my Debian boxes with lots of
success.
I posted a similar message a while ago and nobody answered me.
Thanks.
Sam
|
