> The only reason I can think of (now) that all your traffic went to the > first on the list is that there simply wasn't any load to speak of. How > were you testing? By blasting traffic at the system that's doing the packet forwarding. Perhaps I can write some different code on the web servers that will hold the connection for a while (ie: call a perl script that does a 'sleep 60' or something) and test it that way. > Multiple simultaneous connections? Yes. I have a script that cycles through a perl script (I'll call it blasticv.pl) that calls another perl script (I'll call it icv.pl) with 3 varying parameters... each occurrence of that icv.pl makes a connection to the web server to send and retrieve a chunk of data. "blasticv.pl" cycles through and calls icv.pl 100 times with each of the 3 parameters, and not sleeping at all in the loop. This should simulate 300 requests on the web servers that, given the timing to complete a single request, would mean we'd have about 200 active requests at the peak of activity, yet every single 'hit' on the systems landed on 1.1, and not a single hit on 1.12. > it will simply keep sending traffic to the first > on the list, only using the next one if there is more traffic > 'currently' (presumably based on the connection-tracking data) on the > first destination than on the second. ... which is what I read, also, yet it seemed that causing a good volume of busy traffic didn't forward anything to 1.12 -id
