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

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(a)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_w… 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-)