On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 04:12:10PM +0200, Christian Frost wrote: > Simon Horman wrote:
[snip] > > Assuming that I am correct I can think of two methods of addressing this > > problem: > > > > 1) Simply change 256 to a smaller value. In this case 256 basically > > ends up being the granularity of balancing for bursts of connections. > > And in the case at hand, clearly 256 is too coarse. Perhaps 8, 2 or > > even 1 would be a better value. > > > > This should be a trivial change to the code, and if lc is a module > > you wouldn't even need to recompile the entire kernel - though you > > would need to track down the original kernel source and config. > > > > The main drawback of this is that if you have a lot of old, actually > > dead, connections in the inactive state, then it might cause imbalance. > > > > If that does help it might be good to consider making this parameter > > configurable at run time, at least globally. > > > > 2) A more complex though arguably better approach would be to implement > > some kind of slow start feature. That is, to assign some kind of weight > > to new connections. I had a stab at this one in the past - it should > > be in the archives - though I think my solution only addressed the > > problem for active connections. But the idea seems reasonable > > to extend to this problem. > > > > > Hi, > > We tried method 1, which turned out to balance the connections > perfectly. We multiplied with 1. Thanks, that seems to back up my theory. -- Simon Horman VA Linux Systems Japan K.K. Satellite Lab in Sydney, Australia H: www.vergenet.net/~horms/ W: www.valinux.co.jp/en _______________________________________________ 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
