|
Hi Joe & list,
Not really. I have been running with:
martijn@tweety:~> rr ipvsadm -L
IP Virtual Server version 1.0.10 (size=4096)
Prot LocalAddress:Port Scheduler Flags
-> RemoteAddress:Port Forward Weight ActiveConn InActConn
TCP 212.204.230.98:www sh
-> tweety.sipo.nl:www Local 200 25 44
-> daffy.sipo.nl:www Route 200 12 27
TCP 212.204.230.98:https sh persistent 360
-> tweety.sipo.nl:https Local 100 0 0
-> daffy.sipo.nl:https Route 100 0 0
ever since that list discussion, and haven't had any problems at all.
Since the -SH scheduler sends a client's packets to the same realserver,
I had thought that it should completely replace persistence. However
you're using persistence with -SH, so apparently -SH doesn't handle
keeping the client on the realserver as I expect. So why are you using
persistence?
Ehr.. no reason, I guess. It's still there from when I used RR
scheduling and I guess I forgot to remove it. I don't think it is
actually useful.
On a different topic - why do you have publically accessable realservers?
Why, is that a problem? Security or otherwise? We run a few applications
that don't scale well, so we keep the webserver on the realservers open
for those.
Best regards,
Martijn.
|
