Hi Jinhua,
home_king wrote:
> I am afraid that the method used in the patch is not native, it breaks
> on IP fragments.
> IPVS is a kind of layer-4 switching, it routes packet by checking
> layer-4 information
> such as address and port number. ip_vs_in() is hooked at
NF_IP_LOCAL_IN, so
> that
Hi Jinhua,
home_king wrote:
hi, Wensong. Thanks for your appraise.
> I see that this patch probably makes IPVS code a bit complicated and
> packet traversing less efficiently.
In my opinion, worry about the side-effect to the packet throughput is
not
necessary. First, normal packets with mar
Hi Horms,
I see that this patch probably makes IPVS code a bit complicated and
packet traversing less efficiently.
If I remember correctly, policy-based routing can work with IPVS in
kernel 2.2 and 2.4 for transparent cache cluster for a long time. It
should work in kernel 2.6 too.
For ex
Hi Andy,
On Sun, 7 May 2006, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 11:32:00PM +0800, Wensong Zhang wrote:
Hi Andy,
Yes, the original sychronziation design is a sort of arbitary or
compromised solution. We don't want to synchronize every state change from
master to backup
Hi Andy,
Yes, the original sychronziation design is a sort of arbitary or
compromised solution. We don't want to synchronize every state change from
master to backup load balancer, because we were afraid that there were too
much state change synchronization messages and there would be some
p
Hi,
Sorry for the delay.
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Harald Welte wrote:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 08:31:45PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
From: Harald Welte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 00:04:51 +0200
The only real in-tree user of nfcache was IPVS, who only needs a single
bit. Unfo
