Already has been commited yesterday. The timeoutvalues are higher now: http://cvstrac.pfsense.com/chngview?cn=16232
Holger > -----Original Message----- > From: Nelu Sofrone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 7:23 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Carp failover & ISP Load balance > > Thank you for your answer. I'll wait for some modification of > slbd's sensitivity. > > Nelu > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Holger Bauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 3:51 PM > Subject: RE: [pfSense Support] Carp failover & ISP Load balance > > > This is not possible atm. It's hardcoded in the slbd binary but we are > discussing to either lower sensitivity or make it > configurable. I would > prefer configurable to be able to include links with higher delay for > example (like wireless links) or links where provider do some > shaping to > give pings low priority. > > Holger > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Nelu Sofrone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 2:36 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Carp failover & ISP Load balance > > > > Thank you for replay. > > > > My issue with loadbalancing is only from one of ISP and I've > > tried some different monitor IP with no change. Can I make > > the loadbalancing test less sensitive by increasing the ping > > time out or number of pings? > > > > Nelu > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Holger Bauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 9:41 AM > > Subject: RE: [pfSense Support] Carp failover & ISP Load balance > > > > > > What you see is caused by unreliable monitor Ips (they > don't answer to > > pings all the time). Try to use different monitor IP for your pools. > > Loadbalancing is stable. I'm using it at several locations without > > issues. However with the latest snapshots a new feature > > (failover pools) > > was added and the pool creation mechanism was changed to make > > configuration easier. This *should* work but is not yet as much in > > detail tested like the 1.0.1 balancing code. I don'T have > > issues with it > > at our office though where I now run failoverpools and > > loadbalancingpools. I also know there are some > installations out there > > using CARP and pools successfully. Make sure your Outbound > > nat settings > > are correct. > > > > Holger > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
