Re: [lvs-users] in, the meaning of 'checkcount' is ambiguo

To: "Simon Horman" <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [lvs-users] in, the meaning of 'checkcount' is ambiguous
Cc: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: "Robinson, Eric" <eric.robinson@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 01:33:22 -0700
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Horman [mailto:horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 7:56 PM
> To: Robinson, Eric
> Cc: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [lvs-users] in, the meaning of 'checkcount'
> ambiguous
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 04:45:17AM -0700, Robinson, Eric wrote:
> > The ldirectord man page states that 'checkcount' only works with
> > checks. Then the next sentence goes on to give an example of
> > being used in conjunction with connectimeout/negotiatetimeout,
> > of which are related to ping checks. Can someone please clarify?
> Hi Eric,
> sorry for not responding earlier.
> I've taken a look at the code (in git) and to be honest I don't
> think that this is my handiwork. But none the less I believe that
> the situation is:
> * checkcount only applies to ping.
>   There is a loop in the ping check that will try
>   ping up to checkcount times, breaking out of the loop
>   if a ping is successful
> * checkcount is deprecated in favour of failurecount
> * failurecount works similarly to checkcount, except that it
>   it operates at a higher level and applies to all types of checks
> * It appears that specifying both failurecount and checkcount would
>   a multiplier effect, though only for ping checks
> I will fix up the sample to make use of failurecount
> instead of checkcount.

That's delightful, Horms, thanks for the clarification. I don't think my
version of ldirectord has the failurecount option. It's been in
production since 2006 and is currently managing about 900 virtual
services. I've never wanted to mess with it much, considering that it
has worked very well for us. The failurecount option may be adequate


Disclaimer - July 14, 2011 
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended 
solely for Simon Horman,lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx If you are not the 
named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute, copy or alter this 
email. Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the 
author and might not represent those of Physicians' Managed Care or Physician 
Select Management. Warning: Although Physicians' Managed Care or Physician 
Select Management has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are 
present in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or 
damage arising from the use of this email or attachments. 
This disclaimer was added by Policy Patrol:

Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at: mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
or go to

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