Thanks for you reply,
Yes IP ans Port in the ip_vs are the same than ipvsadm output.
But which one must i trust for active connections ? I'm working on a
project, and this difference is very important in my case.
Maybe ipvsadm output add a connection which is not a " real " connection
from a client ?
On 02/12/2010 01:28, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 07:08:31PM +0100, David Donchez wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I have strange difference between ipvsadm output and /proc/net/ip_vs
>> TCP xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrr persistent 50
>> -> 10.10.1.1:www Route 100 1 14
>> -> 10.10.1.2:www Route 100 1 14
>> -> 10.10.1.3:www Route 100 1 59
>> TCP xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrr persistent 12500 FFFFFFFF
>> -> 0A100103:0050 Route 100 2 57
>> -> 0A100102:0050 Route 100 0 15
>> -> 0A100101:0050 Route 100 0 15
>> Anoyone knows can it can be possible ? Or which is the right output ?
> Hi David,
> I believe that the difference in the active and inactive connections
> [ (1, 14), (1, 14), (1, 59) vs (2, 57), (0, 15), (0, 15) ] is most likely
> due to the measurements having been taken at (slightly?) different times.
> The difference in the persistence timeout (50 vs 12500) is due
> to different units being used. 50 is in seconds while 12500 is in HZ.
> It seems that the value of HZ is 250 on your system.
> Lastly, the addresses and ports output by ip_vs are expressed in
> hexadecimal and are the same values as those reported by ipvsadm.
> Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at:
> LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at:
LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users