|
Hi Simon,
Thanks for the link; kind of understood the concept of persistence. I
guess using this I can make sure that LVS dispatches the client
re-connection to the same real server.But to deterministically configure
connections to go to a real server we need SH.
Prasad
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 02:06:12PM +0530, krishna prasad wrote:
> > 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?
>
> The HOWTO has some information on this
>
> http://www.austintek.com/LVS/LVS-HOWTO/HOWTO/LVS-HOWTO.persistent_connection.html
>
> This ML archive also have various posts by myself and others on the topic.
>
> > Also, do you have any idea if some one already working on this kind of
> new
> > schedule?
>
> I am not aware of anyone else doing similar work.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|
