On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Alexander Holler <[email protected]>wrote:
> Am 28.02.2012 06:35, schrieb krishna prasad: > >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Alexander Holler<[email protected]>* >> *wrote: >> >> Am 28.02.2012 06:11, schrieb krishna prasad: >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Alexander Holler<[email protected] >>> >* >>> >>>> *wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Am 28.02.2012 04:26, schrieb krishna prasad: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But I strongly think that it it good to have IP+port hashing, for >>>>> cases >>>>> >>>>> where multiple clients run on single host, in this case >>>>>> the connections have same IP but different port. In this case also the >>>>>> same >>>>>> is desirable,i.e same client to the same real-server. >>>>>> This may not make a real use case for web world, but a strong case for >>>>>> non-web deployments like in telecom.I know LVS is increasingly used in >>>>>> other than web services. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What should be the use case for this? Source ports are almost always >>>>> choosen randomly, so you woould get the same results as balancing >>>>> randomly. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Not necessarily,I came across few implementations where client port is >>>> fixed (they bind() port while creating socket), but I agree that most of >>>> >>>> >>> Sure. >>> >>> >>> the times source port is random. >>> >>>> The good approach would be LVS to provide options for IP+port or just >>>> IP >>>> hashing. >>>> >>>> >>> But I still miss the use case. If the client always does come with the >>> same port, it doesn't make a difference if the port is used too for >>> hashing >>> or just the IP. >>> >>> >> Oh..Sorry, I should have been clear. >> Here is the use case: I have a client (from out side it looks like a piza >> box, but internally it has many CPU..something like blade server/ATCA) >> which initiates TCP/SCTP connections with same IP address but with >> different Port. >> So if I use SH, all these connections (potentially this client can >> initiate >> as many as 40 connections) will land on a same real server which may not >> be >> what we wanted. we wanted the connections to be balanced (based on >> IP+port) >> across all the real servers. Does it make sense? >> > > Hmm, if it comes to a few thousand different ports, it would, but not for > 40 (imho). ;) > > Anyway, this discussion should be held at the ML, not private. Maybe > someone else could have add some ideas. > Oh..did not notice this, this time I am including the ML group. > > Regards, > > Alexander > _______________________________________________ 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
