[lvs-users] Source Hashing scheduler seems to ignore weight
martin.wheldon at greenhills-it.co.uk
Tue Nov 25 12:30:57 GMT 2014
On 2014-11-25 12:12, Michael Schwartzkopff wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 25. November 2014, 11:50:28 schrieb Martin Wheldon:
>> We have been running a LVS cluster for many years using the WLC
>> scheduler which works fantastically well.
>> Thank you everyone involved in the project.
>> However we now have a requirement to also run a cluster using the
>> Source Hashing scheduler, which is
>> giving us a few problems.
>> We would like to limit the number of connections to a real server
>> it seems this should be possible
>> by setting the weight at a appropriate level.
>> The snippet below seems to indicate that there may be a bug in that
>> number of active connections
>> for each of the real servers below is well beyond the expected 800.
>> That or I've misunderstood
>> the documentation.
>> IP Virtual Server version 1.2.1 (size=4096)
>> Prot LocalAddress:Port Scheduler Flags
>> -> RemoteAddress:Port Forward Weight ActiveConn
>> FWM 3128 sh (sh-fallback)
>> -> 10.1.5.152:0 Masq 400 3023 6115
>> -> 10.1.5.163:0 Masq 400 1455 5288
>> -> 10.1.5.172:0 Masq 0 1071 3306
>> -> 10.1.5.190:0 Masq 400 1350 5267
>> -> 10.1.6.241:0 Masq 400 1046 3190
>> -> 10.1.6.242:0 Masq 400 3231 5512
>> -> 10.1.6.245:0 Masq 400 1309 3604
>> My questions being has anyone else seen/experienced this issue and
>> so how did you work round/fix it?
> as fars as I understood
> there is no weight involved in the source-hash scheduler. Any by the
> way: A
> "weight" is NOT the maximum number of connections ipvs will forward
> to that
> real server. In weight-respecting schedulers it is the relative
> weigth in
> respect to the sum over all weigth of all real servers.
> If you want to limit the numer of connetions, see "man ipvs" and look
> for the
> "limit" section. As far as I remember it is the -y option op ipvsadm.
> Best Regards
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
> Michael Schwartzkopff
Thank you for the rapid response.
That is indeed the option I'm looking for. Thank you for pointing me in
the right direction.
Must RTFM in more detail :)
More information about the lvs-users