Re: website errors

On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 10:47:56AM +0900, Horms wrote: > On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 04:51:13PM -0700, Joseph Mack NA3T wrote: > > On Thu, 24 May 2007, Gerry Reno wrote: > > > > >I'm getting a lot of these on various links/tabs on the > > >http://www.linuxvir

Re: website errors

Documents.html on this server. Sorry about this. I'm actually not sure what the problem is. But I am investigating. Hopefully it will be fixed shortly. -- Horms H: http://www.vergenet.net/~horms/ W: http://www.valinux.co.jp/en/ ___ Linux

Re: TCP Timeout for telnet sessions

se proc values were removed many moons ago. In relation to the actual problem. After you make this change, what to the timeouts for (new) connections in the established state look like. You can see them by examining ipvsadm -Lcn -- Horms H: http://www.vergenet.net/~horms/ W: http://www.valinux.

Re: Update on list move

elf, mainly) that the list > delivery is optimised. Seems to be workign fine here. -- Horms H: http://www.vergenet.net/~horms/ W: http://www.valinux.co.jp/en/ ___ LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@LinuxVirtualServer.org Send requ

Re: [lvs-users] about "expire" timeout

timeout, rather than full fledged connection entries. > > What's the difference? > > and at LVS2, when I connecting using F5(reload), > I can see over 600 connections, but LVS1 only 5-8 connections. > > Is

Re: [lvs-users] about "expire" timeout

etty easy to debug using tcpump -ne or similar. -- Horms H: http://www.vergenet.net/~horms/ W: http://www.valinux.co.jp/en/ ___ LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@LinuxVirtualServer.org Send requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or go to http://

Re: [lvs-users] ldirectord not removing rs

ld add another rs, or change the > weight of an existing rs, all works as intended. > > I have tried to first set the weight to 0, and then remove it, with the same > result. Thanks, I'll look into that. -- Horms H: http://www.vergenet.net/~horms/ W: http://www.valinux.co

Re: [lvs-users] ldirectord not removing rs

x27;Quiescent' instead of 'Restored'? Thanks, I'll look into getting that fixed. -- Horms H: http://www.vergenet.net/~horms/ W: http://www.valinux.co.jp/en/ ___ LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@LinuxVirtualServ

Re: [lvs-users] configuring LVS multiple realservers in director with localnode in SMP machine

this case that would be somewhat silly. If you want to use LVS for this, wouldn't an easy way be to bind the processes to 127.0.0.1 and 127.0.0.2 respectively and set them up as the real-servers in LVS. That said, using fork-on-connect or preforking in the user-space application, and making s

Re: [lvs-users] how many ldirectord processes

e a problem for you, then perhaps you will benifit from splitting things up a bit. Though to be honest, how you do this is really its just a matter of personal taste. -- Horms H: http://www.vergenet.net/~horms/ W: http://www.valinux.co.jp/en/ _

Re: [lvs-users] lvs-users] My LVS always shows "master stopped"

nSwap master status I > always get "master stopped". I believe my configuration on the master and > backup machine is fine even the lo and iproute on the real server. > So what is it I am doing run. Here is the version of the LVS I am using: > LVSSyncDaemonSwap.in,v 1.7 2006/05/1

Re: [lvs-users] LVS with all clients behind a single router. lvs-tun on 2.6 kernel

ering if Graeme's solution might not break the persistancy that you are after. It seems to me that by breaking up the virtual service and load balancing in groups based on the source-port, that there is nothing to stop a given client coming from different ports (in different ranges) for the s

Re: [lvs-users] LVS with all clients behind a single router. lvs-tun on 2.6 kernel

be randomised to mitigate certain classes of security threats. -- Horms H: http://www.vergenet.net/~horms/ W: http://www.valinux.co.jp/en/ ___ LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@LinuxVirtualServer.org Send requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [lvs-users] Heartbeat + LVS: need to reload config

intermediate copy, then ldirectord would attempt to load it. This is compounded by the problem that regardless of what causes ldirectord to reload its config, if the config is invalid then ldirectord will exit with an error. I guess that implementing ldirectord checkconfig would be a good idea. But

Re: [lvs-users] ldirectord not removing rs

and if i would add another rs, or change the > weight of an existing rs, all works as intended. > > I have tried to first set the weight to 0, and then remove it, with the same > result. Hi, I finally found some time to look into this problem. Yes, it does look like it is somewhat

Re: [lvs-users] ldirectord not removing rs

ds, Hi, I finally found some time to look into this problem. Yes, it does look like it is somewhat broken. I have made two patches which I believe solve this problem, I will send them as "[PATCH] [LDIRECTORD] Fix logic bug in _status_down" and "[PATCH] [LDIECTORD] Remove stale entries on

Re: [lvs-users] [PATCH] [LDIRECTORD] Fix logic bug in _status_down

Fix a logig bug in _status_down() that prevented fallback servers from being removed if a) at start no other real servers were present and b) a real server was subsequently added The new logic is the logical not of that found in _status_up With thanks to Sebastian Vieira Signed-off-by: Simon Ho

[lvs-users] [PATCH] [LDIECTORD] Remove stale entries on reload

Call ld_start() on reload to flush out stale entires. With thanks to Sebastian Vieira Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Index: heartbeat/ldirectord/ldirectord.in === --- heartbeat.orig/ldirectord/ldirectord.in 2007

Re: [lvs-users] serious problem experienced with ldirectord 1.77.2.6?

Masq1024 0 0 Hi Struan, Sorry for letting your bug report fester in my inbox for such a long time. I've been doing a bit of a blitz on ldirectord bugs over the past few days, and I found that inadvertantly I had a fix for this problem - which is still present in the l

Re: [lvs-users] ldirectord not removing rs

On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 12:02:10PM +0200, Sebastian Vieira wrote: > On 7/4/07, Horms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I finally found some time to look into this problem. > > Yes, it does look like it is somewhat broken. > > Can you see if the attached patch