Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 07:56:14 -0500 From: David Duchscher <daved@tamu.edu> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: new CARP implementation Message-ID: <A23AEC0C-6C23-4FC9-B36A-01CF3DE1311F@tamu.edu> In-Reply-To: <20110815120750.GF43567@glebius.int.ru> References: <20110810160526.GO43567@FreeBSD.org> <5D7408D3-FAA1-4E22-A136-83DC75D47837@tamu.edu> <20110814084813.GA43567@glebius.int.ru> <67BC462C-0F5D-41E2-B739-CFC9EB417FA6@tamu.edu> <20110815120750.GF43567@glebius.int.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Apple-Mail=_7F262B21-AF95-47E8-BB8A-2D14E4B8051E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r On Aug 15, 2011, at 7:07 AM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > Hi David and networkers, >=20 > On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 03:56:28PM -0500, David Duchscher wrote: > D> > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 07:32:06PM -0500, David Duchscher wrote: > D> > D> My two cents. > D> > D>=20 > D> > D> We rely on the arp load balance feature. We certainly don't = find it useless. Looking at ip load balancing, it would also mean that = we would no longer be able to grow bandwidth with additional systems = since all boxes must receive all traffic. I only humbling ask that some = sort of load balancing feature be included when this goes live. > D> >=20 > D> > Ok, I will make effort to support it. I will inform when patch = would > D> > be updated. > D>=20 > D> Thank you. >=20 > On closer look it appeared that restoring ARP balancing as it was, = isn't going > to be easy. The essence of ARP balancing is that different vhids = possess the > same IP address. Converting that to new scheme would mean that same IP = prefixes > exist on one interface, which is impossible in current networking = stack. And > making it possible would be a bloody hack. >=20 > So I'd prefer to settle current code a bit, commit it to head, after = 9.0 is > forked and released... Test and settle code a bit more... And then = work on > ARP and IP balancing. That would probably require bringing in some = intermediate > structure along with struct carp_softc, that would group softcs into > balancing groups. That is already done in OpenBSD. Not sure that our = balancing > would be compatible with OpenBSD's, however the current is not = already, since > OpenBSD changed their hashing function after we merged carp(4) to = FreeBSD. This sound good to me. I have no requirement for compatibility with = OpenBSD. In addition, we only use the extended support versions of = FreeBSD so 9.0 will not be something we will put into production. -- DaveD --Apple-Mail=_7F262B21-AF95-47E8-BB8A-2D14E4B8051E--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?A23AEC0C-6C23-4FC9-B36A-01CF3DE1311F>