LVS, load balancing, and stickness was ==> Re: [Serusers] more usrloc synchronization

[Java Rockx]

Hi All.

I don't know if I'm going to be of any help here as I've mentioned before 
that I'm as dumb as a door knob when it comes to the network and/or 
clustering stuff.

Our underlying network (ie, BGP pipes, routers, firewalls, LVS, MySQL 
clusters, SIP clusters, Asterisk clusters, NFS storage, etc, etc) have been 
implemented by the engineers we hired from Red Hat.

These guys have implmented (AFAIK) our network layer the same way Google has 
done their WWW farm(s). They have intimate knowledge of Google's internal 
infrastucture because they worked between Red Hat and Google for about 6 
years.

All I know is that it has taken about 4 months of work to get things stable. 
We understand that a VoIP platform isn't about the softswitch - but rather 
the network. I've asked on more than one occasion if I could release our 
network configuration to serusers and the answer has always been "no", so 
there's not much I can contribute here. 

The ser source files are another story. We fully shared our ser.cfg, tcp/udp 
network patch, usrloc patch, etc - but that doesn't help with this.

The only bright point I can offer here is that I'm 100% certain that the LVS 
source code has __not__ been modified.

Sorry,
Paul

On Apr 11, 2005 4:46 AM, Greger V. Teigre <greger at teigre.com> wrote:
> 
> After my last email, I looked at ktcpvs and realized I ignored a couple of 
> things: ktcpvs only supports tcp (http is obviously tcp-based, but I thought 
> it supported udp for other protocols). I don't know how much work 
> implementing udp would be.
>  Here is a discussion of SIP and LVS that I found useful (though not 
> encouraging).
> 
> http://www.austintek.com/LVS/LVS-HOWTO/HOWTO/LVS-HOWTO.services_that_dont_work_yet.html
>  Paul: I'm starting to get really curious on the standard LVS components 
> used for your stickiness! I'm not aware (also after searching now) of an LVS 
> balancing mechanism that allows correct stickness on SIP udp...!
> And I found other too who are looking for it:
> http://archive.linuxvirtualserver.org/html/lvs-users/2005-02/msg00251.html
>  My understanding is that ipvs must be extended (according to the 
> developer) with a call-id based scheduler and that this work has several 
> people willing to fund development, but that this has not(?) started yet. 
> The problem is that ipvs is based on ip header analysis and extending the 
> hashing algorithms to also include payload-based analysis is not 
> straight-forward. 
> g-)
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20050411/4ac35d79/attachment.htm>