|
Christen R. Pacheco wrote:
> 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
Ah ha, look what I started.
I'm still in the testing phase and just recently set up a new little lab
for testing the options that I have available to me.
With that being said, for what it's worth, if code or development does
surface for an active rather than passive monitoring system, I would
like to help test it. As of this moment, I have the time and resources
to do so.
Thanks
-dant
|
