Will McDonald a écrit : > On 22/12/06, Will McDonald <wmcdonald at gmail.com> wrote: >> On 22/12/06, Sébastien AVELINE <saveline at alinto.net> wrote: >> > Will McDonald a écrit : >> > > On 22/12/06, Sébastien AVELINE <saveline at alinto.net> wrote: >> > >> Hi centos users, >> > >> >> > >> I've installed a load balancer using lvs (with direct routing). >> I use >> > >> LVS >> > >> with a heartbeat configuration and ldirectord and I don't use >> > >> persistent connections.My problem is when i am running "ipvsadm >> > >> -lcn", I can >> > >> see a lot of connections with the CLOSE (or others states) >> > >> state going from 00:59 to 00:01, and then going back to 00:59. >> In other >> > >> words these connections should be dropped after they timed out >> but the >> > >> counter is >> > >> reseted to 60. I wanted to compare these entries on my real >> servers with >> > >> netstat and I can say that these connections are not on my real >> > >> servers and >> > >> they should >> > >> be dropped from ip_vs_conn entries. My connection table is growing >> > >> and I'm >> > >> wondering if this connections table will not be too huge after a >> long >> > >> time. >> > >> >> I'm afraid not, all our systems are setup using masquerading NAT. That >> was going to be my next question if it turned out (as it did) that >> you're using kosher RPMs. :) >> >> I've only ever had LVSes configured with NAT so have no experience and >> only a vague memory of how DR works from the docs. If no one here can >> point you in the right direction there's a dedicated LVS list too >> which might be worth searching the archives of and then questioning if >> you can't find an answer. >> >> http://archive.linuxvirtualserver.org/html/lvs-users/ > > And, to follow up my own post, I've just had a quick look through my > LVS list mails and spotted: > > http://archive.linuxvirtualserver.org/html/lvs-users/2006-11/msg00200.html > > > There's no follow up from the OP which may or may not be a good thing. :) > > It appears a kernel upgrade to 2.6.18 (!) may help. You might want to > fire off a mail to the OP and ask if he had any success. I have the > un-obfuscated address in my mailstore, I'll send it offlist. > > Will. > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos Thanks for your help, but I will wait for an official patch from centos, I hope that I will be heard. Sebastien