> > If you want to > > tell me "oh, I take the modulus of the flow label with the > > number of servers I have to select which server", or any > > similar stateless algorithm, I can do it with that hash just > > as easily. And yes, that gives me a session predictably going > > to the same server. But it doesn't allow me to balance loads. > > To balance loads, I need to estimate the load on individual > > paths, and assign new data streams to paths as they change in > > their actual loading. > > Why is that better than a statistical approach? I assume we're > talking about thousands of flows. In any case, in massive > server farms, the server load may be a more important parameter > than the network path load.
[LY] Statistical approach works well under the consumption that there are thousands of flows and they have the similar rates. Today's Internet may have the flows that only have few packets and the flows that have thousands packets per second and last long. Hash does not work well under this condition. [LY] the server load balance and the network path load balance have different criteria. Lucy ------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
