|
Hi again,
Is there a logical reason as to why one of the servers is having so many
connections being turned into inactive (FIN_WAIT) so quickly?
I have read that ipvsadm should keep connections established for a while but
I simply cannot understand why the load balancer is behaving like this. Any
clues will be appreciated.
Thanks again.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Andre Magri <andremag@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 12 February 2010 17:10
Subject: Re: [lvs-users] InActConn dilemma
To: "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list." <
lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
ipvsadm -Ln --stats
IP Virtual Server version 1.2.1 (size=4096)
Prot LocalAddress:Port Conns InPkts OutPkts InBytes
OutBytes
-> RemoteAddress:Port
FWM 80 2053990 19742182 0 4960M
0
-> www2:80 59309 3268078 0 896604K 0
-> www1:80 1994681 16474104 0 4064M 0
Except for the NIC team the webservers are configured exactly the same.
Every 1.0s: ipvsadm -Ln
--rate
Fri Feb 12 17:08:59 2010
IP Virtual Server version 1.2.1 (size=4096)
Prot LocalAddress:Port CPS InPPS OutPPS InBPS
OutBPS
-> RemoteAddress:Port
FWM 80 134 1280 0 369766
0
-> www2:80 4 214 0 45576 0
-> www1:80 130 1066 0 324189 0
Am I going to have a problem when heavy traffic hits?
Thanks!
On 12 February 2010 16:33, Graeme Fowler <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 16:25 +0100, Andre Magri wrote:
> > IP Virtual Server version 1.2.1 (size=4096)
> > Prot LocalAddress:Port Scheduler Flags
> > -> RemoteAddress:Port Forward Weight ActiveConn InActConn
> > FWM 80 wlc persistent 1200
> > -> www2.mysite.com:http Route 1 359 146
> > -> www1.mysite.com:http Route 1 127 *12176*
> >
> > The high rate of InActConn for www1 is worrying me.
>
> That indicates one of several possible things:
>
> 1. www1 is handling more connections than www2, or
> 2. www1 is not closing connections properly
>
> Are the webservers configured in the same way?
>
> What do you see if you do:
>
> ipvsadm -Ln --stats
>
> Also, if you do this:
>
> watch -n1 -- ipvsadm -Ln --rate
>
> [use ctrl-c to exit]
>
> what do you see? I'd surmise that www1 is handling a lot more traffic
> than www2.
>
> Graeme
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|
