On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 11:13:33PM -0400, Andy Gospodarek wrote: > On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 01:38:40PM +0900, Horms wrote: > > On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 02:57:26PM -0400, Andy Gospodarek wrote: > > > On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 12:20:54PM +0900, Horms wrote: > > > > > > > > Sorry, I missunderstood your patch completely the first time around. > > > > Yes I think this is an excellent idea. Assuming its tested and works > > > > I'm happy to sign off on it and prod DaveM. > > > > > > Horms, > > > > > > I'll get a setup together and post results when I have them. > > > > I was thinking that it would be nice if the timeout could be sent over > > the wire, though that might bring in some compatibility issues, > > and thus your approach might be the best idea. > > > > -- > > Horms > > http://www.vergenet.net/~horms/ > > > Horms, > > At first I too thought about including the timeout in the messages would > be nice, but it could raise compatibility issues with maybe the only > advantage being that it would allow quicker timeout of connections -- > something that might be undesirable in such an LVS environment.
Yes, I agree. Wensong raised the issue of having many many connections on the backup, I personally think thats its unlikely that would be a problem in practice, though making it tunable might be nice in any case. -- Horms http://www.vergenet.net/~horms/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
