On Aug 15, 2011, at 7:07 AM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > Hi David and networkers, > > On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 03:56:28PM -0500, David Duchscher wrote: > D> > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 07:32:06PM -0500, David Duchscher wrote: > D> > D> My two cents. > D> > D> > D> > D> We rely on the arp load balance feature. We certainly don't find it > useless. Looking at ip load balancing, it would also mean that we would no > longer be able to grow bandwidth with additional systems since all boxes must > receive all traffic. I only humbling ask that some sort of load balancing > feature be included when this goes live. > D> > > D> > Ok, I will make effort to support it. I will inform when patch would > D> > be updated. > D> > D> Thank you. > > On closer look it appeared that restoring ARP balancing as it was, isn't going > to be easy. The essence of ARP balancing is that different vhids possess the > same IP address. Converting that to new scheme would mean that same IP > prefixes > exist on one interface, which is impossible in current networking stack. And > making it possible would be a bloody hack. > > So I'd prefer to settle current code a bit, commit it to head, after 9.0 is > forked and released... Test and settle code a bit more... And then work on > ARP and IP balancing. That would probably require bringing in some > intermediate > structure along with struct carp_softc, that would group softcs into > balancing groups. That is already done in OpenBSD. Not sure that our balancing > would be compatible with OpenBSD's, however the current is not already, since > OpenBSD changed their hashing function after we merged carp(4) to FreeBSD.
This sound good to me. I have no requirement for compatibility with OpenBSD. In addition, we only use the extended support versions of FreeBSD so 9.0 will not be something we will put into production. -- DaveD
