On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 08:59:15AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Roberto, Hi Marcelo,
>
> On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 08:00:37AM +0100, Roberto Nibali wrote:
> > Well, to be honest, Horms just found another IPVS "issue" :). It seems
> > we are getting into reviewing 2.4.x IPVS a bit more closely. The problem
> > is that if you have setups where the persistency timeout is below the
> > IPVS state machine related FIN_WAIT (not TCP state) timeout (currently
> > 2*60*HZ) persistent templates will not be invalidated and the timer gets
> > re-set if a we still have a valid connection entry hashed. I've first
> > noted this somewhat aberrant behaviour in 2.2.x kernels but never got
> > around looking at it too closely because in 2.2.x we had a timer mess.
> >
> > This issue however is absolutely minor since this buglet has been there
> > for ages already and we never received such a bug report. In fact, it
> > would be quite unusual to set a persistency timeout below fin_wait in a
> > LVS_DR setup for productive environments. And I didn't see it because I
> > set the FIN_WAIT to 10*HZ to relax sockets lingering. We can/will queue
> > it up, together with a small refcnt change for -hf9 and post 2.4.32.
>
> I have a feeling that we will have a lot of network related fixes post
> 2.4.32 (IPVS, IPv6, mcast...). Marcelo, perhaps it would be a good idea
> to merge them in early 2.4.33-pre1 so that competent users have enough
> time to test them ?
Definately. Please queue them up Willy, I will apply Roberto's fix and
release another -rc.
Thanks guys
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
