RE: [SSI-devel] Re: HA-LVS failover

[Aneesh K. K.V <ane...@di...>]

On Sat, 2003-08-23 at 05:51, Walker, Bruce J (HP) wrote:
> Aneesh,
>    I don't believe we want clusterwide port binding, ever.
> I believe rebuilding the LVS tables (listening and connection) are quite
> doable without clusterwide port binding.   Each node must know what
> ports it would register with LVS (via port weight).  Thus when you look
> thru all the listening ports on a given node, for each that are for a
> port that matches the registration list, register it.   To find the
> connections, just look for those that have a local port number of CVIP.
> 
> Bruce
> 
> B.t.w. - could you please explain the port weight idea  (I understand
> why we need a list of which ports to do parallel;  what is the weight
> value?)
> 
> 


The scheduling that we use for load balancing the incoming connection is
weighted least connection. One advantage of this is that sysadmin now
can control the scheduling of a particular service in the cluster by
associating appropriate weight to that port. 

-aneesh