On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 01:58:30PM +0900, Ryan McBride wrote: > > My first thought is to wonder why you're not running with a symmetrical > cluster. But I realise that we are not always in control of such things, > and one of PFs functions is to get help people work around bad network > design.
Right on. We depend heavily on "weights". We have a site that receives many hits/sec, with a bunch of dual-quad cores behind, processing heavy pages (which we have no control over ;-). Even though most have the same amount of RAM and cores, a difference in the processor model will require such a weight adjustment to prevent it from going overboard. We're tight on resources, both computer and monetary ... a common story I suppose. > There are a few things you can do here to get a similar effect. > > 2) Use the 'probability' keyword > > pass quick on em0 inet proto tcp from any to 192.168.100.100 \ > probability 50% rdr-to 10.0.0.1 > pass quick on em0 inet proto tcp from any to 192.168.100.100 \ > probability 70% rdr-to 10.0.0.2 > pass quick on em0 inet proto tcp from any to 192.168.100.100 \ > rdr-to 10.0.0.3 I hadn't thought of this one. It might be a good solution for us. Thanks for the tip. > The changes just committed are actually cleanup that needs to happen if > you want to see some more intelligent weighted load balancing in PF than > these hacks. But that is still a far ways off, definately after 4.7. Still, I'm very glad to hear that the idea has been floating around. Thanks a lot, -- Pascal
