On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 01:10:56AM -0400, Fred Clift spake thusly: > Are there other known issues with these programs that we might likely > trip over? In particular are there nanny options that currently are > arguably non-valid parameters (cause immediate nanny exit) - for > example, a timeout of 0 is one. Are there others?
When I am back in the office tomorrow I look forward to reviewing the issues you found and proposed solutions and see if they are affecting us also. We have had some weird behavior from lvs/nanny etc. Also, you might want to see my posts of around July 4th. Especially if you are using persistence. I am running CentOS 5.5 which should be identical to your RHEL systems. I still don't know why we are seeing weird behavior with ipvsadm --list or why traffic is not being directed as we expect but I have not really looked at it much this past week. But it is definitely time to revisit the issue as we have some more machines to add to the load balancer and I am concerned about doing so before we really understand what is going on. -- Tracy Reed http://tracyreed.org
pgpCxoWT2U8G9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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
