Hi, Up until now i have always used LVS-NAT with the 'wlc' scheduler in combination with persistence to load balance the incoming traffic to several realservers and to make sure they stay on that rs for some time while their (website) session is active. Now i'm going to setup an LVS for several websites, some of which use SSL and/or session support. While the 'wlc' scheduler is perfect, i've found that once the traffic goes really high (tested with apache's 'ab') the director stops forwarding packets. This is around 4-5 thousand connections. My guess is that this is because of the IPVS table (size=4096) which doesn't get cleared because of persistence.
So i've been looking around for another scheduler and one that seems good is 'dh'. I've done some tests with it and i get really push the site to its limits without packets being dropped or rejected. So far so good. Some things that i can't seem to get my fingers on though: One thing i know from the 'dh' scheduler is that the connection to the realserver is based on a hash made from the CIP. Does this mean that in theory connections from different clients can all go to the same rs? If not, how are the client connections balanced? I've heard/read mixed opinions on persistence. My own opinion is that it works great, provided you trust all clients. Obviously this would only work in a LAN, not for an LVS put in front of webservers while being available to everybody (aka the internet). Am i wrong in this assumption? In the past i've compiled the kernel to up the IPVS table size from standard 4096 to a multitude of that. Lately i've read in the HOWTO that this value should only be altered if i know more about IPVS than the developers. My ego isn't that big so i've left it alone ;) Basicly my question would be better formed as: if i deploy an LVS for a high traffic website that requires the client to be routed to the same realserver for as long as their session on the realserver lasts, should i still be using the 'wlc' scheduler in combination with persistence or is another scheduler better suited? Also (final question) if i use another scheduler, do the /proc/sys/net/ipv4/vs/expire_nodest_conn and expire_quiescent_template still have the same effect? thanks, Sebastian _______________________________________________ Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at: http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/ LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - [email protected] Send requests to [email protected] or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
