On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 04:05:55PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> From: Andy Gospodarek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Instead of using the default timeout of 3 minutes, this uses the timeout
> specific to the protocol used for the connection. The 3 minute timeout
> seems somewhat arbitrary (though I know
From: Simon Horman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:59:23 +0900
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 01:35:15AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Simon Horman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:05:55 +0900 (JST)
> >
> > > From: Andy Gospodarek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > >
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 01:35:15AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Simon Horman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:05:55 +0900 (JST)
>
> > From: Andy Gospodarek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Instead of using the default timeout of 3 minutes, this uses the timeout
> > specific to the
From: Simon Horman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:05:55 +0900 (JST)
> From: Andy Gospodarek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Instead of using the default timeout of 3 minutes, this uses the timeout
> specific to the protocol used for the connection. The 3 minute timeout
> seems somewhat arb
From: Andy Gospodarek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Instead of using the default timeout of 3 minutes, this uses the timeout
specific to the protocol used for the connection. The 3 minute timeout
seems somewhat arbitrary (though I know it is used other places in the
ipvs code) and when failing over it would
Hi Andy,
On Sun, 7 May 2006, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 11:32:00PM +0800, Wensong Zhang wrote:
Hi Andy,
Yes, the original sychronziation design is a sort of arbitary or
compromised solution. We don't want to synchronize every state change from
master to backup load balan
On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 11:13:33PM -0400, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 01:38:40PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> > On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 02:57:26PM -0400, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 12:20:54PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, I missunderstood your p
On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 11:32:00PM +0800, Wensong Zhang wrote:
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> Yes, the original sychronziation design is a sort of arbitary or
> compromised solution. We don't want to synchronize every state change from
> master to backup load balancer, because we were afraid that there were
On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 01:38:40PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 02:57:26PM -0400, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> > On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 12:20:54PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry, I missunderstood your patch completely the first time around.
> > > Yes I think this is an excelle
Hi Andy,
Yes, the original sychronziation design is a sort of arbitary or
compromised solution. We don't want to synchronize every state change from
master to backup load balancer, because we were afraid that there were too
much state change synchronization messages and there would be some
p
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 02:57:26PM -0400, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 12:20:54PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, I missunderstood your patch completely the first time around.
> > Yes I think this is an excellent idea. Assuming its tested and works
> > I'm happy to sign off
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 12:20:54PM +0900, Horms wrote:
>
> Sorry, I missunderstood your patch completely the first time around.
> Yes I think this is an excellent idea. Assuming its tested and works
> I'm happy to sign off on it and prod DaveM.
Horms,
I'll get a setup together and post results w
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 10:51:11PM -0400, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 09:47:56AM +0900, Horms wrote:
> > On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 04:11:16PM -0400, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> > >
> > > Instead of using the default timeout of 3 minutes, this uses the timeout
> > > specific to the
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 09:47:56AM +0900, Horms wrote:
> On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 04:11:16PM -0400, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> >
> > Instead of using the default timeout of 3 minutes, this uses the timeout
> > specific to the protocol used for the connection. The 3 minute timeout
> > seems somewhat a
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 04:11:16PM -0400, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
>
> Instead of using the default timeout of 3 minutes, this uses the timeout
> specific to the protocol used for the connection. The 3 minute timeout
> seems somewhat arbitrary (though I know it is used other places in the
> ipvs cod
Instead of using the default timeout of 3 minutes, this uses the timeout
specific to the protocol used for the connection. The 3 minute timeout
seems somewhat arbitrary (though I know it is used other places in the
ipvs code) and when failing over it would be much nicer to use one of
the configure
16 matches
Mail list logo
