krishna.sirigiri at gmail
Feb 27, 2012, 10:06 PM
Views: 541
Permalink
|
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Alexander Holler <holler [at] ahsoftware>wrote:
> Am 28.02.2012 06:35, schrieb krishna prasad:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Alexander Holler<holler [at] ahsoftware>*
>> *wrote:
>>
>> Am 28.02.2012 06:11, schrieb krishna prasad:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Alexander Holler<holler [at] ahsoftware
>>> >*
>>>
>>>> *wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 28.02.2012 04:26, schrieb krishna prasad:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What should be the use case for this? Source ports are almost always
>>>>> choosen randomly, so you woould get the same results as balancing
>>>>> randomly.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not necessarily,I came across few implementations where client port is
>>>> fixed (they bind() port while creating socket), but I agree that most of
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Sure.
>>>
>>>
>>> the times source port is random.
>>>
>>>> The good approach would be LVS to provide options for IP+port or just
>>>> IP
>>>> hashing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> But I still miss the use case. If the client always does come with the
>>> same port, it doesn't make a difference if the port is used too for
>>> hashing
>>> or just the IP.
>>>
>>>
>> Oh..Sorry, I should have been clear.
>> Here is the use case: I have a client (from out side it looks like a piza
>> box, but internally it has many CPU..something like blade server/ATCA)
>> which initiates TCP/SCTP connections with same IP address but with
>> different Port.
>> So if I use SH, all these connections (potentially this client can
>> initiate
>> as many as 40 connections) will land on a same real server which may not
>> be
>> what we wanted. we wanted the connections to be balanced (based on
>> IP+port)
>> across all the real servers. Does it make sense?
>>
>
> Hmm, if it comes to a few thousand different ports, it would, but not for
> 40 (imho). ;)
>
> Anyway, this discussion should be held at the ML, not private. Maybe
> someone else could have add some ideas.
>
Oh..did not notice this, this time I am including the ML group.
>
> Regards,
>
> Alexander
>
_______________________________________________
Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at:
http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/
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
|
