From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Horms Subject: Re: [rfc][patch] ipvs: use proper timeout instead of fixed value Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 12:20:54 +0900 Message-ID: <20060505032052.GY32328@verge.net.au> References: <20060504201116.GA24394@gospo.rdu.redhat.com> <20060505004754.GA6943@verge.net.au> <20060505025111.GA29142@gospo.rdu.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, wensong@linux-vs.org, ja@ssi.bg Return-path: Received: from koto.vergenet.net ([210.128.90.7]:19136 "EHLO koto.vergenet.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932464AbWEEDZN (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 May 2006 23:25:13 -0400 To: Andy Gospodarek Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060505025111.GA29142@gospo.rdu.redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 10:51:11PM -0400, Andy Gospodarek wrote: > On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 09:47:56AM +0900, Horms wrote: > > On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 04:11:16PM -0400, Andy Gospodarek wrote: > > > > > > Instead of using the default timeout of 3 minutes, this uses the timeout > > > specific to the protocol used for the connection. The 3 minute timeout > > > seems somewhat arbitrary (though I know it is used other places in the > > > ipvs code) and when failing over it would be much nicer to use one of > > > the configured timeout values. > > > > Hi Andy, > > > > I agree that the current value is somewhat arbitary, > > however I'm more in favour of setting it idependantly > > of other timeouts, perhaps via proc. In any case, > > won't pp->timeout_table[cp->state] be rather long in > > the ESTABLISHED case? > > > > Horms, > > I agree that there could be a long timeout for ESTABLISHED connections, > but I've run across a situation where I need exactly that. When testing > failover from master to backup I realize that all of my interactive > sessions get dropped much sooner than the timeout I've configured (mine > is currently set for much longer than 3 minutes). If I wanted > established connections to timeout quickly I would set the timeout to be > a small value. Sorry, I missunderstood your patch completely the first time around. Yes I think this is an excellent idea. Assuming its tested and works I'm happy to sign off on it and prod DaveM. -- Horms http://www.vergenet.net/~horms/