On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 17:04 +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > LVS does already have a number of /proc values that can be twiddled > so I personally don't see a problem with adding one more - then again > I'm bound to say that as it was my idea. Personally speaking, the more stuff that's controllable with /proc the better - it makes it easier to code up additional control environments without the execution overhead of calling ipvsadm multiple times. > If you want to code it up as an additional scheduler that is fine. > But looking at your numbers, I am kind of leaning towards just > using your existing patch. Pardon me for speaking out of turn, but an idea just crossed my mind - wouldn't it be better to "merge" (not in code terms) the lc and wlc schedulers so they either base on, or use exactly, the same code? After all, in concept the lc scheduler is simply wlc with equal weights of 1. Isn't it? That shrinks the codebase a bit. > I agree that the only real problem would be the extra number of > inactive connections on the faster server. But the overhead of such > things is really quite small - ~128 bytes of memory and a bit of > extra time to go through the hash table (maybe). This would only be a problem in really large throughput situations, and if you have one of them you probably already have some $$$ to buy a faster processor! Regards Graeme -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
