Hi Joe, On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 05:33:43AM -0700, Joseph Mack NA3T wrote: > > On Sat, 2 May 2009, Simon Horman wrote: > >> I'll double check, but I think the weight specifies a proportion >> of conections rather than an absolute number. Could you let >> me know which documentation you are looking at? > > it's the number of connections > > see section 4.10.2 of > > http://www.austintek.com/LVS/LVS-HOWTO/HOWTO/LVS-HOWTO.ipvsadm.html#SH-scheduler That may have been the case in the past, but examining the code now I don't see any evidence of weight = number of connections for the purpose of calculating overload. As far as I can see a real-server is only regarded as being overloaded if the IP_VS_DEST_F_OVERLOAD flag is set. And that flag only seems to be set in ip_vs_bind_dest() where the criteria is that u-threshhold - as supplied by ipvsadm - has been exceeded. Specifically, I am looking at ip_vs_sh_schedule(), ip_vs_sh_get() and is_overloaded() in net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sh.c in 2.6.30-rc4. Caleb, are you observing that weight = number of connections? If so, which kernel are you running? > no-one used the -SH scheduler for years because no-one understood how to > use it. I expect that weighting by the number of connections was probably > the easiest to code up, but it's not particularly useful I agree with your comments regarding utility. If it is the case then I think it should be changed. -- Simon Horman VA Linux Systems Japan K.K. Satellite Lab in Sydney, Australia H: www.vergenet.net/~horms/ W: www.valinux.co.jp/en -- 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
