krishna.sirigiri at gmail
Feb 27, 2012, 8:05 PM
By the way, is there any other scheduler (other than SH) by which we can
deterministically forward the client connections to the back end real
I mean connection from client1 should go to real server 1..etc.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 8:56 AM, krishna prasad
<krishna.sirigiri [at] gmail>wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 4:18 AM, Simon Horman <horms [at] verge> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 10:32:16AM -0500, Khosrow Ebrahimpour wrote:
>> > Hi Krishna,
>> > On Monday, February 27, 2012 08:08:13 am krishna prasad wrote:
>> > > Dear All,
>> > > If the director is configured with Source Hashing scheduling
>> > > the connections are distributed among the back end real servers
>> > > looking up a statically assigned hash table by their source IP
>> > > My question here is the key for the load balancing is the source IP
>> > > or source IP plus port?
>> > I haven't used SH scheduling myself, but according to this article
>> > http://kb.linuxvirtualserver.org/wiki/Source_Hashing_Scheduling only
>> > source IP is used.
>> Yes, the SH scheduler only makes use of the source IP address and
>> conversely the DH scheduler only makes use of the destination IP address.
>> > Although I am curious why the hash wouldn't use source IP + Port.
>> > clients coming from behind a NAT or proxy will all end up on the same
>> > realserver.
>> I believe that the motivation for the DH scheduler was for use with
>> load-balanced caching proxy servers. The SH scheduler is intended
>> to be used in place of persistence in some situations where it is
>> desirable to scheduler the same client to the same real-server.
>> Clearly the presence of NAT can potentially result in a poor result
>> when using SH. Likewise with persistence, which can provide some
>> of the same behaviour.
>> With regards to SH hashing on both the Source IP and port, I'm unclear
>> of when this would be useful in place of for example WLC
>> I agree that the original motivations of SH (and DH) may not needed to
>> have IP+port hash;
> 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.
>> Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at:
>> LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users [at] LinuxVirtualServer
>> Send requests to lvs-users-request [at] LinuxVirtualServer
>> or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at:
LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users [at] LinuxVirtualServer
Send requests to lvs-users-request [at] LinuxVirtualServer
or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users