On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 06:28:00PM +0800, Godbach wrote:
> On 2013-7-21 18:16, Godbach wrote:
> > On 2013-7-21 16:53, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >> Hi Godbach,
> >>
> >> That's quite a good analysis. I'm realizing that durnig the development
> >> of the algorithm, the maximum weight was 255, and it was later
> >> changed to
> >> 256. The test code that was used for this is still in
> >> tests/filltab25.c if
> >> you're curious. It displays in which order servers are picked, and
> >> applies
> >> random weight changes on the fly.
> >>
> >> I carefully checked and for me we can set SRV_UWGHT_MAX to
> >> SRV_UWGHT_RANGE.
> >> It will have the effect of limiting the maximum number of servers a full
> >> weight to 4095 instead of 4128 (so please update the doc for this).
> >> It is
> >> also used in the leastconn algorithm, and similarly, the effective max
> >> number of connections per server without overflowing will be limited to
> >> 1048575 instead of 1052688 (this is not a big issue).
> >>
> >> So yeah, please go ahead and send a fix for this by. Please also replace
> >> 4128 with 4095 in the documentation!
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Willy
> >>
> >>
> > Hi Willy,
> >
> > Do you mean that we set SRV_UWEIGHT_MAX to SRV_UWEIGHT_RANGE in function
> > fwrr_queue_by_weight for roundrobin and similar function for leastconn:
> >
> > static inline void fwrr_queue_by_weight(struct eb_root *root, struct
> > server *s)
> > {
> > s->lb_node.key = SRV_EWGHT_MAX - s->eweight;
> > eb32_insert(root, &s->lb_node);
> > s->lb_tree = root;
> > }
> >
> > Since I have done this before I sent the first mail, but the result
> > was still not as expected,
> > I want to know that the check you have done was a real test not only
> > code review. If so, I will
> > do the test again later and send the patch if it works well.
> >
> Oh, I guess you meant that set SRV_EWGHT_MAX to SRV_EWGHT_RANGE,
> not SRV_UWGHT_*.No, I really mean UWGHT_MAX set to UWGHT_RANGE since it is used to fix set highest user weight that can be set. Willy
