On Sun, 2010-02-14 at 11:58 +0100, Andre Magri wrote: > That was a great explanation Graeme thank you so much. Indeed enable > keepalives was disabled on www1.
Bingo :) > I have one more question for you though :) Oh, go on then... > Wouldn't it be less taxing on the loadbalancer to have keepalives enabled? No, not really. The cost of session setup/teardown is pretty small compared to the quantity of data pushed over the connection; also keeping a session in the active state costs slightly more than having it inactive so keepalives can appear more costly to both the director and the webserver itself. In practice, with a large number of clients from a large number of networks you'll find that there's a good chance a significant proportion of the clients will either not request keepalives at all, or be behind proxies which don't. > At one point we had a slowdown on the responsiveness of the site and I > thought at the time that having all those inactive connections were a > contributing factor. I would doubt it. You'd have to have a *lot* - literally millions, if not billions - to get to that state, and you'd have log messages about it. Graeme _______________________________________________ Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at: http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/ LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - [email protected] Send requests to [email protected] or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
