Re: [lvs-users] ldirectord parallelising checks ?

To: " users mailing list." <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [lvs-users] ldirectord parallelising checks ?
From: "Ryan Castellucci" <ryan.castellucci@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 00:35:01 -0800
On Dec 19, 2007 10:28 AM, Aaron Linnen <aaron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jean-Paul BALOCHE [STG] wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm a new user of ldirectord. I've got a running configuration with 20
> > http servers.
> > I've got a question regarding the way ldirector check the availibilty of
> > http servers.
> > On each http server, I've got 10 virtual hosts each one on a specific
> > port. ldirector is configured to check every virtual host of every
> > servers. It do it sequentialy, so if several virtual hosts are done, I
> > have to wait for the timeout to arrive. So it take a long time to check
> > all servers. Is it possible to parallelise checks ?
> >
> > Thanks for your answer ;-)
> >
> > JPB
> >
> You can look in the list archives for the thread titled RFC: Forking
> ldirecterd [PATCH] by Ryan Castellucci which starts with:
>   The attached patch modifies ldirectord to fork a process for each
>   virtual server to speed up response time with large numbers of virtual
>   servers. I am testing this vs multiple instances of ldirectord, two
>   virtual servers, three real servers each, and it uses about 25MB less
>   ram over that, and starts up a lot quicker.
> Looks like what you want. That patch should be included in the next
> ldirectord release.

This is pretty much exactly the situation I wrote the patch to handle.
 I'd love to
get some more feedback on it if you decide to try that option out.
It's been merged
into the dev tree on linux-ha mercurial, which is probably the easiest
way to try it out.
Some of my mailing list postings of it got mangled. :(

Ryan Castellucci

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