On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 4:13 AM, Frank Even wrote:
>
> SO, if I understand correctly, if I want the weight variable to have
> any meaning at all, I need to change the load balancing algorithm,
> correct?
>
> What policy would be best suited to using weights? Is that efficient?
> Or should I jus
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 2:04 AM, Remi Gacogne wrote:
> On 07/28/2017 10:30 AM, Frank Even wrote:
>>> That's not expected, especially since we keep no state to do the
>>> load-balancing. Which policy are you using, wrandom or whashed?
>>
>> Whatever is default. Is whashed default? Here's my confi
On 07/28/2017 10:30 AM, Frank Even wrote:
>> That's not expected, especially since we keep no state to do the
>> load-balancing. Which policy are you using, wrandom or whashed?
>
> Whatever is default. Is whashed default? Here's my config (minus the
> ACLs and setKey), it was simple for testing:
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Remi Gacogne wrote:
> On 07/27/2017 07:53 PM, Frank Even wrote:
>> So, weight seems to be honored on initial traffic receipt. But if I
>> test by taking down the node with a higher weighting, so the traffic
>> shifts to nodes with lower weighting, then I bring the
On 07/27/2017 07:53 PM, Frank Even wrote:
> So, weight seems to be honored on initial traffic receipt. But if I
> test by taking down the node with a higher weighting, so the traffic
> shifts to nodes with lower weighting, then I bring the heavier
> weighted node back into rotation, traffic does n
