[lvs-users] Is --timeout intended as non-persistent?

Kendrick Gay kgay at redhat.com
Wed Jul 27 18:47:47 BST 2011

Is there a particular reason they're non-persistent, 
or do you think this would this be a plausible a feature request?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Malcolm Turnbull" <malcolm at loadbalancer.org>
To: "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list." <lvs-users at linuxvirtualserver.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 12:02:11 PM
Subject: Re: [lvs-users] Is --timeout intended as non-persistent?


I don't think anyone will be too worried about how Piranha works on this list...
But most people just put the TCP timeout settings in rc.local or
rc.firewall or some other bootscript as they are non-persistent.

On 27 July 2011 15:43, Kendrick Gay <kgay at redhat.com> wrote:
> It looks like they're asking how to set the TCP timeout value persistently, as opposed to a virtual service?
> I apologies in advance for my ignorance of LVS. Let me give you my client's inquiries in their own words, as I believe they explain it a bit clearer:


Malcolm Turnbull.

Loadbalancer.org Ltd.
Phone: +44 (0)870 443 8779

Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at:

LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users at LinuxVirtualServer.org
Send requests to lvs-users-request at LinuxVirtualServer.org
or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users

Kendrick Gay, RHCE
Global Support Services, TSE
Red Hat, Inc.

More information about the lvs-users mailing list