|
Hi Simon,
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:36:11AM +0530, krishna prasad wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Alexander Holler <holler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >wrote:
> >
> > > Am 28.02.2012 06:35, schrieb krishna prasad:
> > >
> > >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Alexander Holler<
> holler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>*
> > >> *wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Am 28.02.2012 06:11, schrieb krishna prasad:
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Alexander Holler<
> holler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >>> >*
> > >>>
> > >>>> *wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hello,
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Am 28.02.2012 04:26, schrieb krishna prasad:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> But I strongly think that it it good to have IP+port hashing,
> for
> > >>>>> cases
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> where multiple clients run on single host, in this case
> > >>>>>> the connections have same IP but different port. In this case
> also the
> > >>>>>> same
> > >>>>>> is desirable,i.e same client to the same real-server.
> > >>>>>> This may not make a real use case for web world, but a strong
> case for
> > >>>>>> non-web deployments like in telecom.I know LVS is increasingly
> used in
> > >>>>>> other than web services.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> What should be the use case for this? Source ports are almost
> always
> > >>>>> choosen randomly, so you woould get the same results as balancing
> > >>>>> randomly.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Not necessarily,I came across few implementations where client
> port is
> > >>>> fixed (they bind() port while creating socket), but I agree that
> most of
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>> Sure.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> the times source port is random.
> > >>>
> > >>>> The good approach would be LVS to provide options for IP+port or
> just
> > >>>> IP
> > >>>> hashing.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>> But I still miss the use case. If the client always does come with
> the
> > >>> same port, it doesn't make a difference if the port is used too for
> > >>> hashing
> > >>> or just the IP.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> Oh..Sorry, I should have been clear.
> > >> Here is the use case: I have a client (from out side it looks like a
> piza
> > >> box, but internally it has many CPU..something like blade server/ATCA)
> > >> which initiates TCP/SCTP connections with same IP address but with
> > >> different Port.
> > >> So if I use SH, all these connections (potentially this client can
> > >> initiate
> > >> as many as 40 connections) will land on a same real server which may
> not
> > >> be
> > >> what we wanted. we wanted the connections to be balanced (based on
> > >> IP+port)
> > >> across all the real servers. Does it make sense?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Hmm, if it comes to a few thousand different ports, it would, but not
> for
> > > 40 (imho). ;)
> > >
> > > Anyway, this discussion should be held at the ML, not private. Maybe
> > > someone else could have add some ideas.
> > >
> >
> > Oh..did not notice this, this time I am including the ML group.
>
> Hi,
>
> I think that the scenario described above does make sense and that
> none of the existing schedulers cater to it. Although persistence could be
> used to achieve much if not all of the desired result. I would be happy
> to consider a new scheduler that implements source address+port hashing.
>
> the persistence mentioned above, how does it work?Can you point to me a
> link or tutorial on this?
>
Also, do you have any idea if some one already working on this kind of new
schedule?
_______________________________________________
> Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at:
> http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/
>
> 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:
http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/
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
|
