Hi Simon, On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Simon Horman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:36:11AM +0530, krishna prasad wrote: > > 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. > > Hi, > > I think that the scenario described above does make sense and that > none of the existing schedulers cater to it. Although persistence could be > used to achieve much if not all of the desired result. I would be happy > to consider a new scheduler that implements source address+port hashing. > > the persistence mentioned above, how does it work?Can you point to me a > link or tutorial on this? > Also, do you have any idea if some one already working on this kind of new schedule? _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
