Re: [lvs-users] Highest weight only scheduling

On Jan 24, 2013, at 3:50 AM, Anders Henke wrote: > None of the current IPVS schedulers do know "highest weight" balancing. Hi Anders, Thank you for the very informative and comprehensive reply. We decided that using 65535/1 would work well enough for our use case. Thank

[lvs-users] Highest weight only scheduling

server take the traffic, until the primary one comes back online. Is there any way to do this? Thanks, ~Rob ___ Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at: http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/ LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list

[lvs-users] Client on realserver

pear to be available anymore. When I run patch-o-matic it seems that this extension is only available for kernels < 2.6.0 ??? Is there some other/new way that anyone knows of to force a packet over some interface in iptables? Thanks for reading this far. -- Rob de Wit rde...@wise-guys.nl Wise

Re: [lvs-users] Crashing ldirectord

Op 07-06-10 10:53, Simon Horman schreef: > On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 09:43:10AM +0200, Rob de Wit wrote: >> Op 07-06-10 08:41, Simon Horman schreef: >>> On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 11:24:20AM +0200, Rob de Wit wrote: >>>> LWP::Protocol::collect: read 16 bytes >>>

Re: [lvs-users] Crashing ldirectord

Op 07-06-10 08:41, Simon Horman schreef: > On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 11:24:20AM +0200, Rob de Wit wrote: >> LWP::Protocol::collect: read 16 bytes >> Can't call method "is_success" on an undefined value at >> /usr/sbin/ldirectord line 2759. >> failure >

[lvs-users] Crashing ldirectord

I stop ldirectord from crashing on it? ldirectord --version => Linux Director v1.186-ha Kind regards, Rob -- Rob de Wit rde...@wise-guys.nl WiseGuys Internet B.V. http://www.wise-guys.nl/ ___ Please read the documentation before posting - it&#

[lvs-users] acess to loadbalanced services from the director

n i386 GNU/Linux ipvsadm = ipvsadm-1.24-6 Could you please help me? Thanks in advance, Rob Burkels -Disclaimer--- De informatie verzonden met dit e-mailbericht (en bijlagen) is uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde(n) en zij die van de g

Re: [lvs-users] Windows fail over ARP issue

Robin Bonin wrote: > I have seen many postings on an ARP issue, but I think the problem I > am running into is something different. > I have 2 windows server 2003 web server behind a lvm with a second for > fail over. > > When the second load balancer takes over the first, the second server > takes

Re: [lvs-users] initial connection delay

.168.2.240/gw/logo.gif >> ./gwtiming.out 2>&1 curl -s -S -K /root/.curlrc -o /dev/null http://192.168.2.240:8088/gw/logo.gif >> ./gwthttpdtiming.out 2>&1 If anyone knows how to get the same level of detail from wget, please let me know. Sorry if this

Re: [lvs-users] initial connection delay

Gerry Reno wrote: > I don't see anything related to authd or identd: Is there something else > that has this same effect? I'm using all IP addresses for accesses, no > DNS. > > Gerry Try running something like: tcpdump -pennvvvi ethX port 53 on all three machines (if it is a local client or j

Re: [lvs-users] Keepalived + LVS-DR not working [SOLVED]

Gerry Reno wrote: > Schedulers question: > > To test I am using the 'rr' scheduler and sure enough the accesses are > bouncing from one real server to the other. But this is occurring even > when I am in a session. Is there no session 'stickiness' with the > schedulers? > Note that you have a

Re: [lvs-users] How to make NAT lvs work

Mark Wadham wrote: > I might just create a new network for the real servers, seems much easier ;) > > Thanks > > Mark But why? I don't know what it is but it seems like many people make life harder for themselves, create more config work and make their LVS setup higher load by using NAT rath

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

What about this msg from Horms? > And if you are running a recent kernel, you don't need/want to use > LVSSyncDaemonSwap anyway the master/backup daemons can run on both > simultaneously, I believe. See this comment by HAorms: > http://www.nabble.com/LVSSyncDaemonSwap...-t3361536.html Maybe s

Re: [lvs-users] I need help with LVS configuration

ctord does the rest I think. And if you are running a recent kernel, you don't need/want to use LVSSyncDaemonSwap anyway the master/backup daemons can run on both simultaneously, I believe. See this comment by HAorms: http://www.nabble.com/LVSSyncDaemonSwap...-t3361536.html Rob Ahmad Ndo

Re: LVS DR increased "system CPU" and Excessive Network Traffic

Sal Tepedino wrote: On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 18:10 -0700, Rob wrote: Is that a configuration that works for other people? with no separate real servers? I hadn't ever tried that... I'm running a LVS DR Localnode right now. Works fine. Sweet I will have to try that. Despite what S

Re: LVS DR increased "system CPU" and Excessive Network Traffic

Iain Young wrote: Hi Folks, I've just installed a couple of machines with LVS on, using the DR method. I also used the localnode feature, and started the sync daemon as master on one, and backup on the other. The nodes are functioning both as Director, and Real Servers, and now, both machines a