forwarding to the right mail list.....
Zhenghui.Xie at Sun.COM wrote:
> Hi, All
>
> We, the iteam, had a lot of discussions about health check last week.
> There are still several issues I wish people can discuss and reach
> consensus.
>
> Q1. health check probes. What is a valid UDP health check probe
> without knowing the application? Right now, besides allow user to
> provide their own test script, ilb provide three build-in health check
> queries, PING, TCP and UDP. After discussing with Kacheong, for PING,
> using "/usr/sbin/ping" should be good enough (assume that ping allows
> us to specify IP_NEXTHOP which covers DSR mode) . For TCP, a small
> program that opens a socket, connect to the IP/port then close the
> socket will do. But we could not figure out what is a valid UDP probe
> if we don't know the application on the server side. Any suggestions?
>
> Q2. how to show health check results to user? There was no objection
> that we definitely need to show this information to user. But
> arguments remain in which command should show it and what information
> should be included. Below is the summary:
> * which command to show: a) show it with list-servergroup, but one
> argument against this is server health actually is tied to a rule. b)
> show it with list-rule, but it seems not a good match to our current
> rule listing format. Your opinion?
> * what information needs to included: the current proposal is to
> include 4 items: what the hc test is (Ping, TCP, UDP...). the result
> of the last hc. when was the last hc time. when will the next hc be.
> Anything to add or delete?
>
> Q3. does one rule need more than one health check methods? Opinions
> are a) limit one health check per rule. b) allow user to specify more
> than one health check per rule. c) limit one health check per rule,
> but for each health check object, we can allow user to specify more
> than one test methods. Suggestions?
>
> -Jan
>
>
