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

Reply via email to