Re: [PATCH ipvs-next] ipvs: count pre-established TCP states as active

2016-06-12 Thread Simon Horman
On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 06:27:39PM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote: > > Hello, > > On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, Michal Kubecek wrote: > > > Some users observed that "least connection" distribution algorithm doesn't > > handle well bursts of TCP connections from reconnecting clients after > > a node

Re: [PATCH ipvs-next] ipvs: count pre-established TCP states as active

2016-06-12 Thread Julian Anastasov
Hello, On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, Michal Kubecek wrote: > Some users observed that "least connection" distribution algorithm doesn't > handle well bursts of TCP connections from reconnecting clients after > a node or network failure. > > This is because the algorithm counts active connection

Re: [PATCH ipvs-next] ipvs: count pre-established TCP states as active

2016-06-06 Thread Julian Anastasov
Hello, On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, Michal Kubecek wrote: > Some users observed that "least connection" distribution algorithm doesn't > handle well bursts of TCP connections from reconnecting clients after > a node or network failure. > > This is because the algorithm counts active connection

[PATCH ipvs-next] ipvs: count pre-established TCP states as active

2016-06-03 Thread Michal Kubecek
Some users observed that "least connection" distribution algorithm doesn't handle well bursts of TCP connections from reconnecting clients after a node or network failure. This is because the algorithm counts active connection as worth 256 inactive ones where for TCP, "active" only means TCP